In The Out - Vade Mecum - Critical Thinking On Finding Man in Brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief
-1-
-2-
Sotirios (Sam) Karras, MPW

VadeMecum
In
the
Out
Critical Thinking
On
Finding
in brief
Copyright 2012
Man
-3-
Sotirios (Sam) Karras, MPW
Contribution to
Comprehensive Transformational Critical
Thinking
a
In
On
the
Out
Finding
in brief
Man
ISBN: 9780984652624
ARR, All Rights Reserved
Copyright 2012
-4-
Inducement.
For the hasty readers, I have distinguished the important sections from the rest. Distinguishment is
made in two categories. The must read sections (Abstract, Introduction, C, H, S, X, ZA) and the
anywise read sections (M, R, T, ZC, ZJ, ZL). One should read at least all these sections, of both
categories, but the anywise should be read, inescapably.
Abstract.
This essay construes the societal functions, and, consequently, the way to societal change, as the
product of the mans, the producer of the society, functions. Hence, this essay starts by investigating
what are the functioning systems in the humans nature. While exhibiting the interchange of those
systems, it is clarified there is no balance between them, hence, randomly one overlaps the others
forming all different types of persons. As corollary, an order, therefore a model, of these systems is
drawn addressing that also the scholars and researchers are subjected to them while finding and
presenting their findings. The attestation that the man engages in the world making things in his
own image, this of the functioning systems inside him, when knowing his way around, articulates
that Society is also structured in the mans image. This essay discloses chiefly the discovery of a new
agent, in the mans functioning systems, which has been overlooked; secondarily, it discloses the
corresponding societal agent, produced by the man in the mans image, also overlooked; with these
two disclosures, this essay, presents the mans new agent as the solution to the mans transformation
and the societal new agent as the solution to the societal change while it constitutes a Contribution to
Comprehensive Critical Thinking.
Introduction.
Upon scientific research, under logic over common sense, the procedures the processes and the
problems that modern society develops are originated and based on peoples properties activities and
subjectivities. For this fact, peoples properties activities and subjectivities are the targets of
constant forcible development influence and alteration. Among the most effective contemporary
ways of such influence is the use of the impression of necessity of or at products. Satisfactory
products implemented in a close at hand availability at prices affordable for everyone are the
substratum of factualness, tempting people to renounce thought for factuality. Moreover, the type of
these products, essentially targeting the individual for consumption augment, is the cause of the
ingenerated primordial gap between the individual and his social environment. The acceleration of
gait of this products implementation is what forms the pace of recurrence of drawing peoples
attention away from social interest deeper in individuality, resulting in the peoples inability to reset
to any form of collectivism including, but not limited to, the direct democracy. Scientists, by
directing this process back to the top and implementing new satisfactory products in an effort to
reach new feats, unsought generate and empower a loop, hence, also amplify the said gap.
Philosophers, the only ones left attempting to remove the aforementioned gap, fathom the depths of
obsolete philosophy, while being subjected in a relationship of subordination to the modern
perceptions, formulating witty but controversial retorts e.g., about dogmatism versus skepticism,
particularly about the nonsense of metaphysics and its indispensability. This predicament, innately
embodied in philosophy due to its sole nature among all sciences to relying on abstract thinking and
therefore coerced to objectively processing subjectively developed themes, results in the hardship to
conclude convincingly. This essay, accounting that individuals could be swayed on renouncing
thought for factuality only after they choose to be acquainted, and that scientists cannot take
decisions to redirect the scope of the organizations are hired to work for, lauding that objectification
is the essential prerequisite to unravel any crucial issue, indicates that Transformation and Societal
Change lay in dissecting the aforementioned predicament embodied in philosophy; having this
occurred results in objectifying the subjective development of philosophy. There is a way to objectify
the subjectively developed abstract thinking and restore principles in thought, break the loop links
into unification, and square away the controversial issues to new artifices without the subordination
to the obsolete philosophy. This could be a new era in the evolution of mankind thinking.
Keywords:
action, administer, administrative, analysis, article, aware, belly, brain, branch, category, cerebral,
cerebrals, choice, choose, codomain, cognition, comprehension, comprehensive, concept, conscious,
consciousness, critical, decision, deity, economy, emotional, encounter, executive, extroversive,
feeling, frequency, frequent, function, Gamma, ghost, God, government, head, heart, Hegel, human,
image, in, inside, intellectual, judicial, kinetic, knowing, lateral, laws, legislate, legislative, liberty,
man, Marx, metaphor, nature, operation, outside, participation, partite, pattern, performance,
person, personal, personality, philosophy, policies, praxis, process, prototype, public, quality,
-5-
quantity, reciprocal, regulated, regulations, resistive, Riemann, Samuel, science, scientific, Sellars,
senses, sensory, situation, social, societal, society, soma, spiritual, supportive, synthesis, thinking,
transparency, tripartite, value, vote, voting, within.
Corresponding Author:
Sotirios (Sam) Karras. A Greek entrepreneur mathematician and practitioner
philosopher; has resided in the States for the last 16 years and has been the founder
and owner of the AtPT Services LLC. employed in services development business. He
has enjoyed teaching ancient and modern Greek, and also mathematics, in private
institutes. Currently, he devotes his time teaching techniques and methods of
practicing the In, its applications in politics, and writing and inspiring others in
the path of self and social transparency. Publications: In the In (2008), In the Out
(2011), Convergence of Controversies to Comprehension (2011). P. O. Box 52811,
Atlanta, GA 30355. Tel: 6787935230. Email: SotiriosKarrasGeorg@gmail.com
0H
i.
knowing that the MANs NATURE STRUCTURE is tricerebral.

A.
Upon scientific research, under logic over common sense, the procedures the
processes and the problems that modern society develops are originated and based on peoples
properties activities and subjectivities. There are powers, parts of the human being, that interact and
produce the human properties activities and subjectivities. Mainly, all sources of information agree
that these parts of the man are three, but not all of them agree which ones are those three. Initially
and fairly recently the approach that the parts of the human being are three was based on
Thessalonians 5:23, And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul
and body be preserved complete[30] and for long time the vast majority of thinkers thought that the
three parts of the human being are the SSS, the Spirit the Soul and the Soma (the Greek and Latin
word for the shell of the body). For the purpose of this study I name this approach spiritual.
From this reference I preserve that the powers inside the human are three.
B.
Scientifically, though, we do not know what is spirit or soul, but based, essentially,
on the work of Andrew A. Monjan[42], Ph.D., M.P.H, Chief, Neurobiology of Aging Branch
Neuroscience and Neuropsychology of Aging Program of National Institute on Aging (NIA)
NIH/DHHS Bethesda MD, and Stephanie Studenski[53,26], MD, MPH University of Pittsburgh, and
unessentially others, we know that the three powers interacting each another to produce human
properties activities and subjectivities are the thinking, the feeling and the selfmoving. Adler had
preceded; with regard to the process dimension, it seems that Adler meant to introduce all of the
classical tripartite conception of human nature: thinking, feeling, and acting[12]. A few different
definitions, such as HHH, Head, Heart, and Hindlimbs, or the Cognitive, Emotional, and
Physical parts, or the Intellect, the Sense, and the Kinesis, or the Ruler, the Sensor, and the
Carrier, all of which point to the same set of the three powers as preserved above, help to
comprehend them better.
From these references, I preserve the names of the three powers inside the human,
IntellectualEmotionalKinetic, and the name of the human nature as tripartite.
C.
The most interesting, insightful approach to the world and its happening, related to
the three powers of the human, has been presented to us by Samuel Bois, a French Canadian Jesuit
priest and psychologist, who states there are four ellipses which interact with each other to produce
human properties activities and subjectivities. Three of the four ellipses cover activities which are
observable. These three ellipses are labeled C (thinking), B (feeling), and A (selfmoving).
Thinking activities include: ideas, language, symbols, writing, reading, talking, listening,
figuring out problems, planning etc.[9]
Feeling includes: pleasure, joy, anger, fear, desires, purposes, needs, worries, wishes, excitement,
curiosity, and boredom[9].
Selfmoving includes: the autonomous functioning of the organs and voluntary movements of the
body. Our hearts pump, our lungs expand and contract, the whole body grows. Someone works with
his hands, walks, speaks, shouts, sings, cries, eats drinks, throws a football, drives a car, etc.[9]
The fourth ellipse (X) cover activities which are not observable and includes the mysterious activities
that scientists discover and measure. This ellipse represents the field of electrocardiograms,
electroencephalograms, and electromyograms of anesthetics, insulin, vitamins, and hormones; of the
lie detector, and of electroshocks.[9] Bois continues that these various activities overlap and interact
with each other. When something happens in one section, something happens in all sections.[7] Once
these various activities overlap and interact with each other, when something happens in one section
something happens in all sections; because always something happens in one section, it is concluded
that peoples properties activities and subjectivities emanate from these three powers of the human.
-6-
D.
In support of the aforementioned edifice of the human comes the Personality
Psychologys definition of personality. It is admitted and widely known that there is no unanimity
on the definition of personality and most scholars and researchers do not relate themselves with a
certain perspective, but they choose a select approach that fits their needs per case. Subordinately,
I also choose the definition of personality that fits my needs in this case, such as Personality can
be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely
influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations[60]. This is another
comprehensive set of names for the three powers that we could add to the ones referred, in section (B)
above: Cognitions, Motivations and Behaviors! It is pellucid how this new set relates to the three
powers; Cognitions relate to Boiss thinking ellipse, Motivations relate to Boiss feeling
ellipse, and Behavior relates to Boiss self moving ellipse.
E.
Having this, heretofore, demonstration ranged from neuroscience through
psychologist Samuel Bois to definitions of Personality Psychology, I may now advance to Personality
Psychologys theories. All eight personality theories (Trait, Types, Behaviorist, Social Cognitive,
Personal Construct, Humanistic, Biopsychological) base their analyses to the aforementioned three
powers.
F.
Having added to this demonstration, ranged from neuroscience through psychologist
Samuel Bois to definitions of Personality Psychology, the theories of Personality Psychology, I may
now advance to the Personality Psychologys tests. All twelve available personality tests (Fort
Communication Profile, Holland Codes, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Kelly's Repertory Grid,
Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory, Morrisby Profile, MyersBriggs Type Indicator, NEO PIR,
Assessment Inventory, ProScan Survey, Rorschach test, Thematic Apperception Test) base their
analyses to the aforementioned three powers. The Fort system is quick, easy to comprehend, with
the best accuracy in its analysis, and the best tool to improve understanding and communication
among team members. The Fort Profile identifies an individuals current logic style, current stamina
level, and current feelings about goal attainment[60]. The individuals current logic style and
attainment develop mainly in the thinking ellipse C, the Intellectual; the current feelings about goal
attainment develop mainly in the feeling ellipse B, the Emotional; and current stamina level
develops mainly in the selfmoving ellipse A, the Kinetic.
G.
With the tests of Personal Psychology, this demonstration of proofs in the mans
personality, ranged from neuroscience through psychologist Samuel Bois to the definitions theories
and tests of Personality Psychology, is completed; I may now proceed to Sociology. All three
Sociologic Perspectives that Sociology employs (the Symbolic Interactionist perspective, the
Functionalist perspective, and the Conflictualist perspective) base their analyses to the
aforementioned three powers of the human, because each perspective uniquely conceptualizes
Society, social forces, and human behavior.[60] Concepts, forces and behaviors, point exactly to the
three powers in the man the sociologic processes affect, the thinking, the feeling, and the selfmoving.
H.
A peculiar approach categorized between the spiritual, mentioned in section (A)
above, and the scientific, mentioned in sections (B)(G) above, is the Leon MacLarens one. Leon
MacLaren, avoiding in effect separation between spiritual and scientific views, calls the three parts of
the human cerebrals. He also names the man a tricerebral being and denotes the importance of
their combined operation by pointing out how the human would appear if in the human only one
cerebral would operate in its entirety; when a man is all head, he cannot do anything, despite his
theories; when he is all belly (body), he never stops doing and is forever running his poor head into
brick walls; when he is all heart, he wanders ineffectually through a sentimental swamp of non
comprehension. To be all one is hopeless; all three are necessary. The head is best disposed when it
is clear, cool, silent and present; Its function is to observe to direct and keep order; It must be
watchful in order properly to fulfill its function. The heart cannot work well when it is filled with
feelings for ourselves, anxieties, fears, expectations and all the rest; to feel for others; that is its
function. The body, centered in the belly, is concerned with sustained effort, physical skill, fortitude,
endurance, ambition and the rest; it must be ready, sensitive, prepared for action. The three parts,
familiarly called head, heart and belly, are all related to three great principles in us; the reasoning
principle the feeling principle and the active principle. To understand man, and to understand the
sensory world of sights, scents, sounds, tastes and sensations in which he moves, one must understand
the threefold nature of man[15].
ii.
knowing that the TRICEREBRAL mans NATURE structure is natural.

I.
These three cerebrals consist the human nature in an endless and timeless manner
while one randomly overlaps the other resulting in forming different types of persons. The scholars
presented the aforementioned approaches are not aware of the effect of such mixture; if they were,
they would determine how they determine their own approaches, but they fail to explain so. The
scholars, being human beings, are subjected to these cerebrals as well but miss to indicate from which
-7-
one of their own three cerebrals standpoint they determine their own approaches and perspectives.
Above we witnessed Samuel Bois tautologizing physical activity with observable activity, hence, the
idea of a fourth ellipse, the ellipse X, which includes the field of electrocardiograms,
electroencephalograms, and electromyograms of anesthetics, insulin, vitamins, and hormones. Is
physical activity only the observable activity? In the example of breathing, surely the diaphragms
and the intercostal muscles contracting and relaxing function can be observed, but arent the
impulses, when the breathing center in the pons turn off the inspiratory center before the lungs get
too full or when the second breathing center in the pons stimulates the inspiratory center to prolong
inhaling when needed, physical activities? Yes they are! Additionally, Dr. Jack Feldman, professor of
neurobiology and senior author of UCLA, University of California in Los Angeles, states, that
Humans breathe no matter what. Yet breathing is an instinctual process[51]; if breathing is
instinctual, Samuel Bois fails to explain how he determines his own approach, because he is subjected
to these cerebrals as well. This makes a good example of an abstract thinker, the psychologist Samuel
Bois, who has fallen in the predicament, innately embodied in philosophy due to its sole nature
among all sciences to relying on abstract thinking and therefore coerced to objectively processing
subjectively developed themes, as I have phrased it in the Introduction. Similarly, Leon MacLarens
description of the head fails to address why cool and silent head will fulfill heads functions such as
to observe to direct and keep order; likewise, would any Leon MacLarens feeling of anxiety
disconnect our heart from working well or just the specific feeling of anxiety for our self
disconnects our heart, based on the statement that the heart works to feel for others?
I detect that this fact, that the aforementioned scholars fail to indicate from which one of
their own three cerebrals standpoint determine the functions of these cerebrals is why no one of the
scholars has defined yet the prioritization related to the nature of those cerebrals, although all of the
scholars proclaim one message, the one that human is consisted of three cerebral powers which tender
existence activity and interaction. For example, if ones kinetic cerebral doesnt respond and doesnt
put in action what this persons intellectual cerebral understands or his emotional cerebral feels
then we have to deal probably with a disable person, but still such person can cope with Society; if
ones emotional cerebral doesnt feel what this persons intellectual cerebral understands or his
kinetic cerebral acts then we have to deal probably with an emotionless or senseless person, with
all properties attributed to such person, but still such person can cope with Society a mother
understands and acts with tenderness but not always feels it; but if a persons intellectual cerebral
doesnt understand what his emotional cerebral feels or his kinetic cerebral acts then we have
probably to deal with an insane, a retarded, person and such person cannot cope with Society. This
analysis tells us that there is a prioritization within the three cerebrals. The Intellectual cerebral
comes out as prioritized, as well as more important.
J.
Having dissected that the Intellectual cerebral comes out as more important, we
now, for first time, can redefine the three cerebrals from this standpoint, the Intellectual. In order to
do that we could use numerous ways and models, surely, but amazingly enough the seat of the
Intellectual cerebral, the brain, offers the best model by its own natural structure. The brain is
consisted of three parts, also; the large part called the cerebrum, the smaller part in the back called
the cerebellum, and the brainstem which channels the brain in the spinal cord (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
What these three parts of the brain do is, the cerebrum forms defines and administers by
remembering, discerning, thinking; the cerebellum maintains weighs and coordinates by feeling,
valuing, balancing; and the brainstem channels facilitates and expedites while also controls bodily
functions such as breathing, digestion, heart rate, blood pressure. In proxy and macro terms, the
cerebrum determines defines and directs concepts, the cerebellum engages esteems and entertains the
formed concepts, and the brainstem connects channels construes the validated concepts into action in
the lower body for its kinesis. Similarly, in proxy terms this is what the three cerebral powers also do;
-8-
the Intellectual by understanding will determine define and direct concepts, ideas, decisions; the
Emotional by feeling will engage esteem and entertain the meaning, the value, the quality of the
concepts ideas and decisions; the Kinetic by acting will connect channel construe the formed and
validated concepts in movement, kinesis, performance norm.
K.
Being now in position to commend one term for each cerebral power and emend that
the three cerebrals are about the concept the conception and the conceptualization, it is correlatively
coherent to sustain the desideratum one attribute of each cerebral from the Intellectual cerebral
standpoint, in regards to the Societal interaction.
For the head, the seat of the Intellectual cerebral, the outdoing attribution is decision; this is why
persons are held responsible and considered accountable individuals for their decisions. I preserve the
alias administrative decision maker for the Intellectual cerebral.
For the heart, the seat of the Emotional cerebral, the outdoing attribution is value; this is why
persons face consequences for how they value and balance things. I preserve the alias operational
value allocator for the Emotional cerebral.
For the belly, the seat of the Kinetic cerebral, the outdoing attribution is praxis, the enforcement of
what the person has decided and validated. This is why persons are held responsible and considered
accountable individuals for their praxes. I preserve the alias functional praxis pursuer for the
Kinetic cerebral.
iii.
from Knowing THAT to Knowing HOW.

L.
The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the
broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term[52]. Wilfrid
Sellars after explaining the basal, To achieve success in philosophy would be, to use a contemporary
turn of phrase, to know one's way around with respect to all these things[52] forms one of the most
brilliant distinctions useful to peruse the procedures the processes and the problems of the modern
society as based originated and developed on peoples properties activities and subjectivities; his
distinction is Knowing one's way around is, to use a current distinction, a form of knowing how as
contrasted with knowing that [52]. Knowing ones way around in using English grammar is a form of
knowing how one uses English grammar while speaking English as contrasted with ones knowing
that English grammar is what constructs speaking English. Once this becomes crucial for the
forthcoming essay, clarification of the interrelation of those two terms is needed. Wilfrid Sellars
clarifies, There is all the difference in the world between knowing how to ride a bicycle and knowing
that a steady pressure by the legs of a balanced person on the pedals would result in forward motion.
Again, to use an example somewhat closer to our subject, there is all the difference in the world
between knowing that each step of a given proof in mathematics follows from the preceding steps, and
knowing how to find a proof. It can be argued that anything which can be properly called knowing
how to do something presupposes a body of knowledge that or, to put it differently, knowledge of
truth or facts. If this were so, then the statement that ducks know how to swim would be as
metaphorical as the statement that they know that water supports them. However this may be,
knowing how to do something at the level of characteristically human activity presupposes a great deal
of knowledge that, and it is obvious that the reflective knowing one's way around in the scheme of
things, which is the aim of philosophy, presupposes a great deal of reflective knowledge of truths.[52]
This clarification is simple to comprehend but yet crucial. There is all the difference in the world
between knowing how to act, interacting in reciprocal activities in Society and behave in societal
conceptions, and knowing that the human natures three cerebrals, seated at the head at the heart
and at the belly, interplay and produce human actions and behavior. Sellars forms his idea water
supports the ducks but what he connotes and what actually happens is that water dictates what
ducks should do; Sellars doesnt say it nor detect it, but water is not just only supportive; on one
hand it sounds that water is helpful by providing buoyancy to supporting the ducks in swimming but
on the other hand water is unhelpful and resistive when the ducks dive against the buoyancy should
they need food; in other words, water is not just supportive.
Isnt this the case with the man and the Society? The water consists the environment where
the ducks live and daily swim; the society consists the environment where the man lives and daily
swims. Man knows how to conduct and surf the Society because man is by nature a social
animal (Aristotle, Politics)[44] but that doesnt presuppose that man knows that society dictates the
rules and his behavior in the society. To be prcised, the society calls in the man by providing
reciprocal support; after men find themselves in the Society, the Society dictates men to work hard
should they need to deepen, because what was provided primarily in supporting them, the reciprocal
support, now acts against them and against their need to act, should they need to survive in society;
the reciprocal support becomes resistive competition.
M.
What makes that, what is primarily supportive, to become resistive? It is not an
indefinite nature, and not some different rule. It is the frequency! The frequency of use! If the duck
-9-
was just passing the water and the frequency of using it was rare, the duck wouldnt need to dive for
food; duck could adjust this need differently, by looking for food on the land. When Hegel wrote, On
the one hand, the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality. On
the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, by exceeding
which the quality suffers change. This process of measure, which appears alternately as a mere
change in quantity, and then as a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged under
the figure of a nodal (knotted) line.[27] and correctly stated immaterial though it be he connoted
exactly the change in frequency of the use of the specific quantity, although he was not aware of it;
this is the immaterial increase or diminution he had detected, which then didnt know and didnt
precisely phrased. Also, in Engelss writing, Thus, for example, the whole of Part IV of
Marx's Capital production of relative surplusvalue deals, in the field of cooperation, division of
labour and manufacture, machinery and modern industry, with innumerable cases in which
quantitative change alters the quality, and also qualitative change alters the quantity, of the things
under consideration; in which therefore, to use the expression so hated by Herr Dhring, quantity is
transformed into quality and vice versa.[17], is the frequency of use of the machinery, the frequency of
use of the modern industry, which is called labor, that brings the change in quality, not the said
quantity of the labor added in the product; if the same quantity of use of machinery that occurred in
a month was occurred in ten years, quality wouldnt have changed or it would be an inconsiderable
factor. Even when one reads what Karl Marx wrote in the Human Requirements and Division of
Labour, The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the
realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new
potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.[37] one could understand this sharply clearer
if one knew to conclude that the said quantity of objects in the excerpt is the frequency of obtaining
objects which creates in the man the idea of possession, which in turn alters the mans behavior to
swindling and plundering, than if one assumes in the same phrase the implied pure quantity. Truly,
this is the reason why Karl Marx prefers to admit that he borrowed as is what Hegel first
introduced in regards to quantitative changes, in his 1867 letter to Engels, Incidentally, you will see
from the conclusion to my Chapter III, where I outline the transformation of the master of a trade
into a capitalist as a result of purely quantitative changes that in the text there I quote Hegels
discovery of the law of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative one as
being attested by history and natural science alike.[38] It is the frequency of the recurrence in
processing the processed quantity, the frequency of the implementation of a processed quantity, that
changes quality, not the process of the quantity itself. Hegel and Marx knew that something else was
there, not the quantity itself; this is why they kept saying, We speak of quality in the sense of a
process and quantity in the sense of the stages of development of the process. It is important to make
the distinction between quantity in this sense and quantity in the sense of numbers or amount.
Change is not a simple shift in the balance of forces or the simple increase or decrease of the old.[29]
This is the reason of the resistive nature of the bourgeoisies versus the proletariat and not that
the proletariat created great wealth for the capitalist and the capitalist bourgeoisie mercilessly
exploited the proletariat[39] as it is manifested in the Manifesto of the Communists. What seemed to
be the case of an intentional exploitation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the natural
turn in the interrelation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, occurred from the change in the
frequency of the recurrence of the use and of the growth of the bourgeoisie, which made bourgeoisie
resistive from supportive, rather than the quantity of the proletariat labor increasing the wealth of
the bourgeoisie which in turn has exploited the proletariat. Frequency also explains excerpts like
Confusion, modernitys Babel Tower, results from going against nature. There are seemingly
unbridgeable gulfs among and within the natural, social and human sciences, The very idea of too
much wealth may seem odd in 2010. Yet Aristotle teaches caution about such assumptions. He
advocates moderation and measure in life, defining or virtue as the rational pursuit of a mean
between harmful extremes.[20] Those are true statements, but one wonders where going against
nature stops, once we need more goods and services? or how much too much wealth is too much?
or what is Aristotles measure point of measure and moderation? and where does the extreme
start? The answer on all above is the frequency, which in fact can be measured in each occasion.
Frequency explains many other systems and their dynamics, even in daily ordinary life.
When one travels, one will feel grateful and refreshed sipping a hot, nevertheless not the best, coffee
from a travelersstop gasstation; however, if the frequency of passing by this gasstation changes,
and one starts living in a house near by this travelersstop, this one probably will never stop by this
gasstation to order coffee but will seek a real coffee shop with a better quality coffee; the refreshed
and supportive coffee has now become declassed. What calls in a human to get married, the
connection companion and completion in life, changes down the road because of the change in the
- 10 -
frequency of the couples interaction and meeting together; whatever interrelation was naturally
supportive at the beginning, when frequency was sporadic, becomes resistive when the
implementation becomes more or less frequent or continuous; then the interrelation needs special
attention and other skills, should it survive.
N.
As Wilfrid Sellars didnt go further to examining how the supportive water becomes
resistive for the ducks, likewise he didnt go further to examining the validity of the fact that this
may be, knowing how to do something at the level of characteristically human activity presupposes a
great deal of knowledge that[52]; Sellars understands that ducks do not need to know that water
supports them while the ducks know how to swim in the water, and he also understands the man
does not need to know that a steady pressure by the legs of a balanced person on the pedals would
result in forward motion[52] while the man knows how to ride a bicycle[52] but, of course, the man
made the pedal although the duck never made the water or the man made the English grammar even
though the man was using already the English language. These facts connote that humankind in its
entirety connects and functions in the humans nature structure and, in any event, the man who
founded the pedal constitutes a cell in the brain of the humanity or he is part of the Intellectual power
of the humanity, while in contrariety, the man who rides it constitutes a cell in the body of the
humanity or part of the Kinetic power of the humanity. As corollary, we cannot tautologize in the
same event, in the event of knowing how to ride a bicycle, both men, the Intellectual and the
Kinetic; we can agree that we consider the Kinetic man as the only man in the scene of riding the
bicycle, even when we find that those two men, the Intellectual and the Kinetic, are the same person
in different moments.
iv.
from KNOWING to subjective IMAGES.

O.
How one conveys from knowing how to knowing that while at the same time
understands how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest
possible sense of the term? Lets go back in the roots of philosophy together with Wilfrid Sellars.
For the philosopher is confronted not by one complex many dimensional picture, the unity of
which, such as it is, he must come to appreciate; but by two pictures of essentially the same order of
complexity, each of which purports to be a complete picture of manintheworld, and which, after
separate scrutiny, he must fuse into one vision. Let me refer to these two perspectives, respectively, as
the manifest and the scientific images of manintheworld.[52] As Sellars continues with the
definition of those two images, we do not want to forget that is the philosopher who is confronted by
the two images; he firstly defines the manifest image of the man, The manifest image of manin
theworld is the framework in terms of which man came to be aware of himself as maninthe
world. I have characterized the manifest image of manintheworld as the framework in terms of
which man encountered himself. the concept of the manifest image of manintheworld is not that
of an historical and bygone stage in the development of man's conception of the world and his place in
it [52]; secondly, he defines the scientific image of man, The scientific image of manintheworld
is, of course, as much an idealization as the manifest image even more so, as it is still in the process
of coming to be. It will be remembered that the contrast I have in mind is not that between an
unscientific conception of manintheworld and a scientific one,...[52] While we keep in mind that is
the philosopher who is confronted by the two images, we also keep following Sellars, being a
philosopher himself, as he enters in the aisles of the relations of those two images, Our contrast is
between two ideal constructs: (a) the correlational and categorial refinement of the original image,
which refinement I am calling the manifest image; (b) the image derived from the fruits of
postulational theory construction which I am calling the scientific image.[52] Sellars even clarifies the
relation between the original and the manifest image stating that the refinement of the original
image into the manifest image is the gradual depersonalization of objects other than persons. The
point I now wish to make is that although this gradual depersonalization of the original image is a
familiar idea, it is radically misunderstood, if it is assimilated to the gradual abandonment of a
superstitious belief. A primitive man did not believe that the tree in front of him was a person, in the
sense that he thought of it both as a tree and as a person, as I might think that this brick in front of me
is a doorstop. When primitive man ceased to think of what we called trees as persons, the change
was more radical than a change in belief; it was a change in category.[52]
Sellars has delivered an amazing work, which probably he was not aware of. Sellars has not
attested the conveyance of the man from the original image to the manifest with the passage of the
man from knowing how to knowing that; we attest that. The man has developed the path from
the original image, that is knowing how all things are things and persons, through the
- 11 -
depersonalization of things and his own image to the manifest image, that is knowing that he is a
person encountered in the world.
P.
In the original image era man thought of a tree as a tree and also as a person, in the
sense we see a brick also as a doorstop; this attests that man thought of things in the terms of his own
image; man thought for things in the image of his own nature; man thought of things as persons.
This is where Sellars feels necessary to explain, And let me make it clear that by persons', I do not
mean spirit or mind. The idea that a man is a team of two things, a mind and a body, is one for
which many reasons of different kinds and weights have been given in the course of human
intellectual development. But it is obvious, on reflection, that whatever philosophers have made of the
idea of a mind, the prephilosophical conception of a spirit, where it is found, is that of a ghostly
person, something analogous to flesh and blood persons which inhabits them, or is otherwise
intimately connected with them.[52] How greatly true is this? People, scholars and philosophers still
think of a person as a flesh and blood person inhabited by a ghostly person. Ascetics, practitioners of
any doctrine, anchorites, hermits cannot refer to the spirit but as a ghost, even if it has to be a holly
ghost! This is the greatest raveled issue among them; among the claimers of the highest levels of
divine no one has specified objectively that ghost; no one has specified any entity in the spirit, hence,
the attributed name of the ghost! This is what substantiates the memorable saying of St. Silouan of
the Orthodox doctrine God is inexorable! to such degree that even the predominant church had to
accept it and include it officially in his memorial sermon on September 24th, Assembled in faith we
honor thee, Silouan, as an ascetic of Christ; and we believe that in truth He appeared to thee as thou
wast standing before His holy Icon, smitten by despondency which drove thee to say: God is
inexorable! [16]; with this he expressed he couldnt specify objectively what he was taught or thought
it might be and tried to achieve in ascetic labors. Inferably, the one thing we know is that of a
ghostly person inhabiting the flesh and blood person.
v.
from SUBJECTIVE images to the EXTROVERSIVE image.

Q.
While the philosopher is confronted by the two images, the philosopher, Sellars as
well, does not discern tautologizes the subjectively developed philosophers confrontation with
the objectively processing reality; this simply results in no acknowledgment of a clear discernment
between the two. This has occurred because the philosopher Sellars, as likewise the psychologist Bois,
has fallen in the predicament, innately embodied in philosophy due to its sole nature among all
sciences to relying on abstract thinking and therefore coerced to objectively processing subjectively
developed themes, as I have phrased it in the Introduction; in this subjectively developed theme,
the confrontation, the process in reality, that is the phase from the mans original image to the
manifest image, constitutes the objectively processed phase while the philosophers confrontation
constitutes the subjectively developed phase. Doing so, by unintentionally not discerning the
philosophers confrontation with the process in reality, the philosopher, Sellars as well, does not
elucidate what happens in reality and consequently omits to see the third out of the three properties
remaining unchanged throughout the process; though, he describes the first of those properties and
part of the second one.
The first property is the idealization by depersonalization, wherever it happened; Sellars describes
this property. The second property is that the man is not aware of the process, the philosopher is;
the man processes the images unaware; however, the philosopher processes the images aware; he is
confronted by them. The third property is the interchange happening and that the interchange
carries on. The interchange occurred from the objectively processed original image to the
subjectively developed manifest image forth to the objectively processed scientific image,
although a relation between the manifest and the scientific image is not clear or is not defined yet,
except that the manifest image supported the scientific. Keeping pellucidly in mind the interchange
happening in reality, if a philosopher, honoring Sellarss foundation in this dissection and his
dissection, abides with the three properties idealization, unaware processed, interchangingly then a
philosopher could securely come forward with the revelation of the next image set to come and
whether such a new image already exists.
Although Sellars attests that there are many scientific images because each science has
something to say about the man, he acknowledges the idealized scientific image is one. Of course it is
one; the scientific image has to be one, otherwise how could it be ideal? But sciences do not work all
together and therefore it is impossible for them to draw one specified image for the man; the man
does. The man lives reality and has no reason to wait; this is why he fuses all images to one and
rather processes this process subconsciously, naturally unaware.
Although sciences do not work together and do not ascribe one idealized scientific image, the
man, who becomes aware of his own properties activities and subjectivities, uses one image by fusing
naturally all scientific images to one idealized image about himself; how? how does the man know
how to apply idealization? The man knows how from the experience he obtained in the era of the
manifest image. The man primarily attributed persons to the objects trying to communicate with
- 12 -
them; communicating with them resulted in depersonalizing them because he became aware of
himself; this is event one in idealization. Then, depersonalization resulted in depersonalizing his
own self, the original image, and further encounter himself as manintheworld; this is event two
in idealization. Parallelly, the man encountering himself created science, thereafter each science came
up with its own scientific image for the man; these are the newly appeared scientific persons. The
newly appeared scientific persons substituted for the persons in things, of the era of the original
image, in a new contemporary way; at this point, depersonalization occurred again and the man
simplified the appeared scientific images to a converged scientific image for himself; this is event
three in idealization. Now, the man, having been informed about his scientific images from each
science and enriched with this one converged scientific image, makes the things he makes according
to this image of his; he used to see things in his own image, now he makes things in his own image.
This act, of applying the ideal image of his on the things he makes, is extroversive and therefore the
applied image is named extroversive also.
This is crucial and has ramifications; personifying things in his own image led the man to
surmise deities in things and even worship them in a way to communicate with them; however, after
repeated depersonalization occurred, the man cannot surmise deities neither worship them anymore
and, seeking no communicative interrelation with the things, seeks, instead, functional interrelation
with them.
R.
Now we are able to understand the actual message of Thomas Altizers work, The
Death of God[4] and Living the Death of God[3]; as of the aforementioned reference to the ghost
person inhabiting the flesh and blood person, hence, knowing that nobody knows what God or spirit
or even mind is, what Thomas Altizer really proclaims is the death of deities and worshipping them;
he really refers to the end of the era in which people thought of things as persons, surmising deities in
them, and satisfying their need to communicate by worshiping them. God rewards, God punishes,
God can be begged, God watches, God thinks, God feels, God orders, God accepts oblations, God can
be angry, God can be pleased, God likes the failed, God doesnt like sex, God likes the married, God
though forgives the unmarried, God likes wealth, God doesnt like the wealthy, God is for the hungry
God has a special place for the wealthy who contributes to the hungry, God tells us how to explain
God, God never appears, God has overlooked this life, God counts in the other life, God wants you to
suffer here, God will give you better when out of here. At the end, although God made man in his
own image, man has made God in his own image; what is this all about? what does all this remind
us? Doesnt it remind us of the God or of the deities of the original image era when the man used to
see things in his own image? As corollary, God follows precisely all the way the mans image, once
man made God in his own image, and finally dies. Amazingly, from his standpoint, the theological,
Altizer has confirmed the actual development and process of the Sellarss mans original image; he
has done an amazing work by scholarly, and in detail, stating the death of the deities and the
refinement of the original image to the manifest image.
S.
What type of images are the images each science says about the man? What types of
man do the sciences present to the man? Causal, Structural, Operational, Dynamical, Modal. All
sciences have based their research and perspectives on how the man thinks feels and performs or how
the man understands values and behaves, although sciences have never referred to these three patterns
of the cerebral powers for the sole reason that sciences do not work together to converge their
inferences and scheme the one image about the man. For example, when Encephalization infers and
presents the image that the mans intelligence depends on the mans size, according to the power
formula of allometric growth[2] E=CSR, still sciences do not connect the dots. This equation
introduced by Snell in 1891 is one of the crucial equations and shows that brain depends on the size
of the animal and has found application in neurology by Snell, in linguistics by Zipf, in economics by
Pareto, in biology by Huxley, in demographics by Naroll and quite many other fields, even in
evolution theory. However, when scientists find that such powerful piece from one science alone
applies to other scientific fields, it might interrelates sciences and unifies sciences abstractively, but
doesnt improve the mans image and its projection among the men. When Psychology creates an
image of how the mans emotions affect personality (classified in the Heart seat), when Neuroscience
creates another image of how the brain and the brains size effects and controls emotions (classified in
the Head seat), then Encephalization follows to infer the image of intelligence depending on the mans
weight (based on the allometric equation and classified in the Belly seat), as corollary Anatomy
presents the brain as the center of the nervous system and the image of the man as a nervous and
hormonal complex (classified in the Belly seat), Chemistry follows presenting the amino acids and
proteins, next Biology presents the DNA, then Physiology creates the image of the man as an
interconnected metabolism, and Biochemistry explains how the DNA is affected by emotions which
goes back to personality in Psychology, there is no one scientific image of the man fused from all
above information together because the sciences do not work together in convergence; yet each
science struggles for answers on its own. In other words, while each one of the sciences has patterned
its own information and images around one of the cerebrals adumbration, as just presented above, the
image of the man, as a tricerebral, doesnt come forward because there is no science, one science,
receiver of the inferences from each science, to fuse those images in one; the man does. The man, as
the receiver of all those details and information, under the encounter to become aware of himself as
- 13 -
manintheworld over the manifest image, fuses all these information and images and builds a
converged one. The man does this even when receiving vague and contradicting images, like when,
on one hand, receives the above illustrative cycle of information from Psychology through
Biochemistry back to Psychology acquiring the image that brain is of centric importance and it
controls everything and, on the other hand, receives antithetical information ranging from Andy
Clark who based on Robotics, because robots operate satisfactive without a central unit of control (a
brain), claims that cognitive scientists should learn to substitute the image of mind as a controller
of embodied action[34], (2)through Anthropology which claims that the humans main difference from
other animals is that human has an erected body which gives the human the ability to use free hands
(not mainly the brain) which in turn allows humans to make tools, (3)to Malia Keznek who on
battling Chomsky, who believes that parts of the brain have evolved over time specifically for the
purpose of producing and understanding language[35], claims that language is a tool that gives us
many mental capabilities, including thinking about thinking, and the brain is not a centric controller
but The brain, above all else, is an organ whose purpose is to manipulate the behavior of the body in
an environment.[35] In other words, the man fuses images to one image even when he receives vague
and contradicting scientific images from each science, like when, on one hand, receives information
for the centric role of the brain and, at the same time, receives information for the noncentric role of
the brain. Borrowing helpful pieces from one or another science is what we experience the science
does, not synthesizing inferences from sciences.
It is time for science to follow the mans tread and deitemize its images, same as the man
depersonalized his own, adopting the idealization of them while encountering to be aware of itself as
scienceintheworld, same as the man did when encountered to be manintheworld. For
example, while modeling of human motion has progressed from simple structure from motion
paradigm to the recognition of actions/interactions as events[1] involving also highlevel processing,
such as, (1)human body modeling, (2)level of detail needed to understand human actions,
(3)approaches to human action recognition, and (4)highlevel recognition schemes with domain
knowledge[1], and this Bobicks taxonomy defines three kinetic properties, movement, activity,
action[1], no one synthesizes these analyses inferences in an idealized image for the human motion.
This stance has been spread in every sector of societal activity and Zeleny is greatly correct with his
criticism on the present mechanistic stance on enterprises management and solutions research[62].
Zeleny concludes that it is the biological model, rather than the engineering one, which is appropriate
for thinking and managing[62], particularly when dealing with societal change. It is time for science
to proceed to its own manifest image and adopt synthesis, which triggers unity of knowledge, to
ensue analysis, which triggers knowledge of unity. This is literal; I fathom with pleasure when
imagine how essentially different the world would be with the scientist obliged to synthesize the atom
from its components after the scientist had split the atom in its components, should the scientist
desired his discovery to be accepted, affirmed, awarded, applied and cited. Moreover, the academic
establishment should form a branch of science that would apply synthesis when analysis has achieved
its inferences; this has never been thought of before and it could be done now from one of the
sciences that are involved in Dynamical projects, like the System Dynamics. It seems that such work
from System Dynamics, as the Scenariodriven planning is a new management technology[19],
promise a lot if as scenarios considered on aggregate the inferences from a wide range of sciences
than what N. GeorgantzasW. Acar claim only to be when write that, Scenarios are about the
multiple perspectives that strategic thinkers use to defeat the tyranny of dogmatism that has assailed
American business for the past two decades.[19] System Dynamics could draw the dynamics of the
science in its entirety, as one system alone, and draw its deitemized manifest image while
idealizing its scientific images, in an effort to become aware of itself as scienceintheworld, as
exactly the man depersonalized his original image and idealized his scientific images in his effort
to become aware of himself as a manintheworld.
T.
The man grasps one general image, not in detail and not in preciseness, one image
that fits all of the above and consists the idealization of them; the scientific image; this is the one
image which each science draws a part about, because all sciences have based their research and
perspectives on how the man thinks feels and performs, as stated above, and in corollary this is the
ideal image the man draws out of each science; that he thinks, he feels, he moves and how those three
functions interplay. Therefore the extroversive image is the decision makerthe value allocator
the praxis pursuer image. Having formed such image, the man acts and makes things.
A transportation, a car, a bus, or a plane, is made in the adumbration of the mans image;
the administrative decision maker is the driver or the captain; the operational value allocator is
the engine and functioning parts; with the driver (the brain) in place no one will enter the
transportation if the engine and the operational parts (the heart) are not balanced properly and
mirrored accordingly at the cost; last, the chassis and all on the top of it, including the people, all of
which perform the praxis, consist the functional praxis pursuer; with the driver (the brain) in place
and the engineandparts (the heart) in balance, yet the vehicle is not useful and will remain unused
- 14 -
without the chassis and all on the top of it, including the people (the body). A property is an
adumbration of the mans image; the administrative decision maker is the propertys location
which it stands at, the operational value allocator is its likelihood and accessibility, including but
not limited to utilities, environmental conditions, communications, and the functional praxis
pursuer is its architecture and what determines its specific use, including its shape.
A building is an adumbration of the mans image; what defines a building is the roof even if
there are no walls; what ascribes value for living in the building is the walls and the surrounding
enclosures; what assures that the building will function is its foundation and the way it stands.
A computer is made in the same image with its operational system its software and its
hardware with the peripherals. A restaurant is consisted of the administration office the kitchen and
the dining room. A company is made with the CEO and board including the shareholders, the staff,
and the assets including the objective at work. A subdivision, a church, the military, all what is made
by the man is made in the mans image. Any object, system and organization, made by the man, is
made with something that directs it the administrator of it, something that maintains it the
operator of it, and something that functions it the shell and what that includes; in short, everything
is made with an Intellectual an Emotional and a Kinetic cerebral.
vi.
mechanism of EXTROVERSION.
U.
Although all four images, original, manifest, scientific, and extroversive as a
whole, in the broadest possible sense of the terms, brought together in the broadest possible sense of
the terms, they are objectives subjectively processed by the philosopher, once the philosopher is
confronted by those. The man never became aware of them, the philosopher did. The man performed
with them encountering himself by nature while the philosopher perused them encountering himself
by trait. Sellars has prepared a short retort about what by nature means in this case, If we use the
phrase, the nature of a person, to sum up the predictabilities no holds barred pertaining to that
person, then we must be careful not to equate the nature of a person with his character, although his
character will be a 'part' of his nature in the broad sense. Thus, if everything a person did were
predictable (in principle), given sufficient knowledge about the person and the circumstances in which
he was placed, and was, therefore, an expression of his nature, it would not follow that everything the
person did was an expression of his character.[52] To this effect, everything the man has done has
been an expression of his nature, not his character. The definition of human nature that is most
scientifically sound is attributed to the criminal justice professor of Northeastern University,
Richard Wiebe, as Human nature consists of the inherent potentials and abilities shared by all or
most individuals[59]. As corollary, the remaining issue, to ascertain by which mechanism the man
process his own images, finds here an enrichment; the mechanism, whichever it is, as done, has been
an expression of the mans nature[52]. How is this possible, the classical tripartite human nature
has been applied and fits in everything the man has done?
What kind of bird are you, if you cannot fly, said the little bird to the duck. What kind of
bird are you, if you cannot swim, said the duck and dived.[23]
Anastasia Giannakopoulou in an evaluation of the Prototype Theory presents the essence
of the structures of categories; people create categories of things and assign the same name (or label)
to things that are not exactly the same but similar.[23] Then how the man categorizes things? By
comparison, using analogy and over all reducing in unification. In any event, categorization means
that elements of a category are more centric than others and by any mean Prototype Theory has
based its edifice in Aristotelian logic when stating that This prototype object consists of a mental
entity in the human mind.[23]; this prototype object, the mental entity in the human mind, is the
manifest image and the scientific image respectively per case. This prototype object, the mental
entity in the human mind, is the tripartite ideal, the categories of thinking feeling and acting, by
which the man classifies everything he does.
V.
However, once again, the man has never become aware of this mechanism, the
philosopher has. The man performed this mechanism encountering himself by nature while the
philosopher performed himself encountering this mechanism by trait. This is why, when the man
struggles to find answers, the philosopher has some already; a good example is the renown ethical
issue of the raped pregnant in coma woman of Fauconnier and Turner; a woman in an irreversible
coma was raped and became pregnant (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002, p 219). The resulting debate
in the media (about whether she should be given an abortion) raged around a number of doublescope
blends. One was, What would she want us to do? [8] Problems like this might had been easily
resolved if the man was aware of the mechanism of his tripartite nature, the tricerebral mans
structure, and how could it be applied in lifes matters. It is obvious, when the cerebral at which the
people wish to resolve a problem and the cerebral at which the people process and from which present
a solution to a problem are not the same, there occurs discord. Similar is what happens in science
- 15 -
and in philosophy on aggregate today. The man, though, proceeds; the man cannot wait, because he
is not aware of the process while encountering himself as manintheworld. How does the man
proceed? What solution does the man find acting by nature? Lateral thinking! a thing that the
science cannot do. In introducing his lateral thinking model for teaching creativity, Edward de Bono
explained, The need for lateral thinking arises from the limitations of a selfmaximizing memory
system. Such a system functions to create patterns and then perpetuate them. Lateral thinking
breaks down old patterns in order to liberate information. Lateral thinking stimulates new pattern
formation by juxtaposing unlikely information. (de Bono, 1977, p 51, emphasis added)[8].
(1)The need for lateral thinking arises from the limitations of a selfmaximizing memory
system; this is wisdom! (2)Lateral thinking breaks down old patterns in order to liberate
information. this is wisdom! (3)Lateral thinking stimulates new pattern formation; this is
wisdom! Moreover, the most astounding part is, limitations of a selfmaximizing memory system
Such a system functions to create patterns and then perpetuate them
W.
Last, how does the man perpetuates the patterns? Simply, by using them! So the
question actually points to which way of use of patterns perpetuates the patterns! The following is a
set of patterns the man uses daily.
Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms
were right on target. I've never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot! If you use
that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.[36] The pattern is Argument is
War[36]
Another common set is this; You're wasting my time. This gadget will save you hours. How
do you spend your time these days? That flat tire cost me an hour. I've invested a lot of time in her.
You need to budget your time. Is that worth your while? Do you have much time left? You don't use
your time, profitably. I lost a lot of time when I got sick.[36] The pattern is Time is Money[36] Both
examples describe what metaphor is; the man forms concepts by using metaphors all the time. Our
ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical
in nature.[36]. Lakoff and Johnson verify what this essay says about the man been unaware while
processing the four images as he encounters himself as a manintheworld; But our conceptual
system is not something we are normally aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we
simply think and act more or less automatically along certain lines. This is what we mean when we
say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined.[36] With this Lakoff
and Johnson work on metaphor, the mechanism, of how the man makes things in his own scientific
image, is completed. The man, firstly, creates concepts by metaphor because the human conceptual
system is metaphorically structured and defined.[36]; then, and before the man proceeds in
conception, as I have defined it in section (K), the man categorizes similar and non-similar things, by
comparison, around a centric member of the category; then he creates the prototype; then he uses
later thinking to break the limitations of the selfmaximizing memory and create new patterns; last,
the man perpetuates them, using again metaphor.
vii.
societal concepts extroversion in the TRICEREBRAL nature of SOCIETY.

X.
The way this essay is deployed, heretofore, is the way this essay suggests the sciences
should deploy their inferences also; to make a good example of what science should do, having
synthesis ensuing analysis, when analysis has achieved its own inferences, the edifice of this essay is
built in synthesizing the results of the several sciences and scholars in regards to what has been the
scope here. Further, in section (W), the mechanism the man perpetuates his own images has been
thoroughly completed. Being, myself, subjected to the tricerebral nature of my being, I owe the vis
vis clarification that, in this essay, I exhibit things strictly from the Intellectual standpoint for two
reasons: For one, there is a prioritization within the three cerebrals, as I state in section (I), and,
for two, it is safe to remain with the Intellectual cerebral knowing that the frequency of the
Intellectual cerebral implementation will change the nature of its interrelation with the other two
cerebrals. Having this clarified, and viewing Society from the Intellectual standpoint, I shall state
that Society is a concept, not a thing, and also Society is a thing because it is an entity that the man
makes; nonetheless it exists in the sensory world. This dual character of Society exists due to the
mans own participation, which is entailed from the reciprocal support with which Society calls the
man in, as I stated in section (L) referring to the deep waters of society in the metaphor of the
swimming duck pattern. Society is a concept and, by being so, falls in the mechanism of conceptual
deployment, as exhibited above.
Attesting it, we see that (1)in a first step the man creates the concept of Society in the
aforementioned form; reciprocal support, participation, give and take. As corollary, such
definitions determine what should and what should not be conceptually societal. For example,
- 16 -
military, police, justice, disaster aid are participations of reciprocal support; in another example,
education doesnt reciprocally support anyone but the man alone.
(2)In the second step, the man, unaware, classifies what belongs to the duties of Society, similar or
nonsimilar, and validates them by comparison, as conceptually societal related, while he leaves the
rest of the concepts, outside of such evaluation, to the mans own affairs; for example, does
everything the man participates with is societal? No, working in a private company doesnt make the
company reciprocally supporting Society! a further query would point that the reason for this is that
the man working in a company aims to personal success, therefore it is of a personal gain nature, not
of a reciprocal support one; this connotes that participation, the kind that constitutes Society, should
be nonpaid; for example, the jury duty. These categorizations become also the criteria to make
decisions for issues when issues are risen. For example, should the military service be paid? If
military service is nonpaid should be in the Societys affairs, but if paid it should be dismissed from
being the Societys responsibility and become the mans private affair with all what this possibly
means. In a great issue today, the issue of the church, does a church constitutes societal concept? No,
because church doesnt contribute to any reciprocal support service; it is declared clearly from the
churchs mouth that church is all about each individuals soul and each one has to carry this labor on
his own. Then, is the crowd, that emerges to aid in a disaster, conceptually societal? Yes, because it
is a participation in reciprocal support and nonpaid; however, why doesnt the man recognize the
aid emerged from such crowd as societal participation? why doesnt the man, yet unaware, categorize
this crowdaid among the societal concepts? because there is no organization in this crowd and
emerges randomly; therefore organizability is strapped with societal concept; this connotes the need
of leadership and the founding of government.
(3)In the third step, the man creates the prototype of Society. This is the stage where the man sets
some ideals, rules and relations, in what Society is or should be and establishes institutions; for
example, the man determines that the forms of society functions are healthy when there are duties or
services assigned and carried by the members. E.g., military service is one, if nonpaid, because it
includes reciprocal support for protection. The concept of duty or service is adhered in the prototype
of Society and without it there is no meaning to any societal concept.
(4)In the fourth step, the man uses later thinking to trim limitations whereby some characteristics are
eliminated. It is in this stage where the mans first attribution to Society, as reciprocal support,
participation, give and take, takes a turn and the man ascribes to Society attributions other than the
primary one, as is the reciprocal effect instead of the reciprocal support which is the case of the
public cleaning, as is the obligation instead of the participation, as is the taxes instead of the non
paid actual services and more. In the example of family, this is the stage at which family started been
considered societal unit and the cornerstone for societal participation, although it is not. Similarly,
this is the stage at which church or other important institutions started been considered societal
cornerstones. In this stage, things start being altered, because of the limitations trimming.
(5)In the fifth step, the man creates new patterns. Here included all type of new patterns, e.g., the
county, the federation. Here, the man applies his previous experiences and conclusions in new
societal patterns specially established to promote such societal conclusions as systems. For example,
in the pattern of polis, the man applies his conclusion of participation and reciprocal service in the
form of governing. Hence, if governing would be the application of participation and reciprocal
service at the level of polis, then polis becomes conceptually societal. Lets take the example of the
State. Lets assume there is a service adhered to this Society, the State, and this is the protective
service and what this represents, including but not limited to army and police. Then protective
service should be nonpaid and it should require participation even if it was ruled to be in a cyclic
mode. Also, not everyone has to do that, but only a number of the members of the State, exactly
because men gather in Society for reciprocal support. Hence, if the example of the protective soma is
the participation and reciprocal service in the State, then State is conceptually societal; however if
Federation, for example, comes in the middle and operates the protective service, then there is no
service that brings together the people of the State and the State would be faded out by losing its
character as conceptually societal; while the State fades out by losing its adherent service, Federation
rises up by obtaining an adherent service, that of protecting; if the State wants to continue being a
societal concept, the State needs to find another service that would bring its people together in
participation, otherwise it will lose its actual cause of existence; then, if the State continues to exist,
it will become a burden on its citizens shoulders. By the same token, other types of societies that are
not accompanied with a service bringing their people together, for example the county, or regions like
Balkan, or federations without an adherent service like European Union, cannot survive in peoples
mind and become a hollow shell, a burden, enforced by uncountable paper work in rulings and laws
with the purpose to convince peoples mind that their existences are necessary.
(6)In the sixth step, the man uses again metaphor to perpetuate the new patterns, especially when the
man applies them in the real world. This stage takes long time to complete, even when the man
applies such patterns in small societal projects. This is the stage where ferment happens and people
struggle to figure out how things work. For example, Society requires people to attend school and
obtain license for driving, which also requires every individual, who would like to drive, to invest
time and money for certain aspects of driving, like insurance, renewal, safety, and more; and Society
- 17 -
also has ruled driving as privilege, so it can be suspended should people not meet the requirements;
however, Society doesnt require the same training, investment and responsibility level for one of the
more important of its functions, the voting, although voting has been also ruled as a privilege in some
countries; voting has been let vague to be considered as right for the purpose to secure that it would
never be suspended, even when people do not know the basics of how Society functions and promotes
its reciprocal support nor people have been politically trained for their responsibilities as citizens.
This is an example of a ferment, currently at work, with an outcome not yet specified; voting has
been ruled as privilege in the USA and should be a privilege anywhere else, therefore one should be a
licensed voter after attending school and required to invest time and money for this privilege, should
Society decide to make its members active participants aware of what reciprocal support and societal
function is. This, sixth stage, is the stage in which the man believes one thing but another happens,
causing the necessary ferment; in this stage, the man pursues attempts, clubs, brotherhoods, rulings,
and so on, because he believes they promote Society and conceptually societal aspects, but the only
effect they have is to perpetuate the mans patterns; in other words, the man thinks he promotes
societal concepts while the only thing that happens is the man learns and keeps up the ferment
necessary to spur a new actual societal concept.
Y.
The aforementioned, in section (X), analysis is actually the answer to Whitworths,
Brian and Alex, question. Whitworths attest the fact that No theory predicted the success of work
fornothing schemes like Wikipedia, or even imagined that user run trading systems like EBay were
possible. Yet sociotechnical systems, that began as largely free services, have had massive growth,
e.g. Wikipedia now dominates Encyclopedia Britannica, YouTube media content competes with
television, Linux userbuilt operating systems are the standard for large scale computing, user trading
systems like EBay are the main pointofsale for small businesses, and the Facebook social network
system recently registered over half a billion members.[58] Whitworths then ask the question, Given
no invisible hand of profit incentivizing individuals to contribute to online communities, nor any
central governance coercing or motivating them, why then do people choose to upload, share, blog, help
and cooperate in increasing numbers?[58] The key point, in the Whitworths references, is the pay
free participation in the base of reciprocal support; whatever aspect engages this attribute, the
aspect becomes very attractive to people. With this claim Whitworths say what is simply known to
everyone, but it doesnt promote any societal concept; the difference it makes, though, is the
Whitworths enthralling figure 4 in their paper (Fig. 3 in this essay) which is an astute representative
demonstrating how the ferment happens and the way people try to figure out how things work while
they perpetuate the new patterns without any real effect in Society but enriching themselves until the
next, say in spiral, concept is formed. Creating new patterns, and perpetuate them, encompasses even
(1)made up, selfmade, definitionlikes which may serve personal agendas, and moreover
(2)commercial applications, like the networking applications. For the first type (1) I can refer to
Frank Daviss definition, I suppose that if I carry around an idea of what human society is, it is that
its a cooperative enterprise which aims to provide the greatest degree of personal freedom for its
individual members.[13] which was made to promote his agenda for smoking freedom.
For the latter type (2) the figures (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6)[11] from Paul Collinss work, seen first as
Personalitys test in section (F), depict a keen idea of a patterns application in societal concepts,
- 18 -
showing an example of how the mans very personal attributes can be patterned and how, in return,
the same personal attributes perpetuate this pattern.
Z.
In section (X), it is exhibited that Society is a concept and also a created thing,
owing its dual character to the mans own participation and make. Also it is exhibited that Society,
consequently as a concept, is subjected to the six steps of the deployment of the conceptual
mechanism. Nonetheless, Society, as a thing made by the man, evolves as a thing also. There are
several theories, patterns, detecting how Society evolves; most of them revolve around the two
mainstream theories that hold a prominent position, Functionalism and Organismic. Renown
Herbert Spencer, the English social philosopher and advocate of Darwin's theories, although
originated his theory in late 1800s, has gained acceptance for applying the Darwinian theory of
evolution that species improve with the strongest triumphing over the weak in Society, arguing
that wealth, power, growth are, to the benefit of mankind, the products of intense competition and
their achievements are ways for the qualified and fit to prevail and triumph over the weak and unfit;
in a common analogy, Herbert Spencer presents the integrals of Society as organs necessary to
function the Society body, as a whole, toward a stable and cohesive system. Wonder, may we
scientifically explain the functions of one category of species with another, just because both are
subjected to the same law, the law of evolution? How in the world we can state that although the
stomach apparently does not do any work but gets all the food which the other parts of the body make
a great effort to obtain, a strike against the stomach by the rest of the body is obviously selfdefeating.
Hence, the necessity for an analogous group in society or, as we may say today, a leisure class.[6]? Of
course one can argue this depiction constitutes lateral thinking arising from the limitations of a self
maximizing memory system, as it is mentioned in section (V) above, and therefore is a metaphor in
forming new patterns; this argument would be reckoned and welcomed, if in the metaphor, and while
trimming the limitations, the nature was not altered. When the man uses lateral thinking, the man
doesnt alter the nature of the concept nor its function. When the man uses lateral thinking, rather
acquires naturally the Zelanys model, perceiving enterprises and economies as organisms[62], than
altering mechanistically the nature of the concept or its function, as Back suggests[6]. This is one
more case of this predicament, innately embodied in philosophy relying on abstract thinking and
therefore coerced to objectively processing subjectively developed themes, resulting in the hardship to
conclude convincingly that I state in the Introduction.
ZA.
After all the previous analysis it is also pellucid that the scientists who have
depicted human organs to societal integrals have not touched the role of the human nature and its
structure, in regards to societal evolvement. However, Society, as a thing made by the man, has been
structured in the mans image. If mans personality, personality theories, personality tests, and
personalitys sociological perspectives develop interpret and correspond in the three cerebrals of the
mans nature, then the mans properties activities and subjectivities among the happenings of this
- 19 -
world, the components of Society, are developed in the same way. They appear with the
administrative decision maker, the operational value allocator, and the functional praxis
pursuer; the Intellectual the Emotional and the Kinetic cerebral. The administrative decision
maker is the Government; Government is the brain of the Society and rules the rest of the Societys
body. The operational value allocator is the Economy as a whole, any type or norm of Economy,
personal, social, corporate; Economy is the blood giver to the entire body of the Society, even to
the brain, the Government. The functional praxis pursuer is the Societys specific land defined by
its borders and its people with all the assets and the peoples interrelations and events that people
pursue in everyday life. As in any soma, so the countrys or the poliss or the countys land and their
included traffic with the contained kineses actions and praxes form the traffic necessary should the
soma considered a living organism, even when those societal levels, the country the polis the county,
do not constitute a valid Society for any of the aforementioned reasons.
Additionally, the tricerebral structure of Society follows the humans tricerebral structure
further in accuracy. Section (J) drafts: the brain is, also, consisted of three parts, the large part
called the cerebrum, the smaller part in the back called the cerebellum, and the brainstem which
attaches the brain to the spinal cord (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). This is what the brain of Society, the
Government does. The Government is consisted of the three branches. In the avantgarde graphic
piece of Nicholas Georgantzas (Fig. 7)[22], we see the example of the Federal USA Government s
branches, the Legislative in blue dot line, the Judicial in red dot line, the Executive in black dot line
and their dynamics in their interplay with voting, rights and so forth.
The Legislative, like the cerebrum does, defines and administrates the concepts of the entire Society
by making laws and ruling by addressing one concept or clarifying the other issue; the Judicial, like
the cerebellum does, arranges coordination and maintains balance by explaining the ruling of the
Legislative, ascribing value and interpreting the meaning of the concept in reality; the Executive,
like the brainstem does, by expressing functions into the lower body, in the body of the Society
among the land and its people, runs channels and executes the coordinated, by the Judicial, concepts
which the Legislative has defined. The Legislative, as an Intellectual cerebral, by understanding will
define administrate and form concepts, ideas, decisions; the Judicial, as an Emotional cerebral, by
valuing will operate maintain and balance the meaning, the value, the quality of the concepts ideas
and decisions of the Legislative; the Executive, as a Kinetic cerebral, by acting will run channel and
function the formed and validated concepts in action, performance and execution.
ZB.
Society is an abstract concept that evolves in the six steps of the mechanism of
concepts evolvement; also Society is a thing made by the man in the image of the mans nature, the
tricerebral one. Having attested the same tripartite nature of the man and the Society, it is
possible, if we are able to detect the pattern for Transformation for the man, to also be able to detect
the pattern for Societal Change in an analogous way, once the natures of both are tripartite and of
the same structure. As mentioned at the end of section(X), this is where this essay attempts to reach
and conclude.
Under this principle, mans Transformation will result in Societal Change, and not the other
way around. Once man has evolved through evolution of his images, mans Transformation wont
happen unless a mew image blooms, under the same mechanism of evolvement as before. In order to
- 20 -
do that, the man needs to form a new concept for himself; this is the man with the In, presented
soon after.
Such new concept will come either at the very beginning before the first step of the
mechanism of the conceptual deployment as a result of an innovation or after the sixth step as a
result of a pattern, one of those the man creates and perpetuates; nonetheless, it can come from both.
As a philosopher I will have to connive the latter option leaving that process to people; as a
philosopher, I will develop and present, below, the first option, that is to form a new concept for the
mans own self, one that will help the man to evolve to the next new image, thereby achieving
Transformation; this is the In, presented soon after.
In seeking the next mans image, we should abide with the three properties (idealization,
unaware processed, interchangingly) and detect if such new image springs from the last mans image
on stage the man has naturally encountered the world with. Hence, if we attest these three properties
on such image, that image would be the ideal to proceed with; if such process occur, it is an amazing
testimony to realize all this is brought forward from the need of Societal Change; Zeleny has
captured this sharply, since in our human development there are mobile knowledge and
learning[63], brought forth by our ontic society and the underlying global forces of mobile
business[63]; such amazing description is what the In is: a mobile knowledge and learning
brought forth by our ontic society and the underlying global forces of mobile business.
Doing so, this essay would have been completed and have created a prototype, not a pattern.
Change will come when people start trimming this prototype with lateral thinking and create new
patterns in action.
viii.
the FACT in the HUMAN model.

ZC.
Information, Ideas, and Impressions are received from all surroundings by our senses
all the time and we process all of them in the brain. In fact, the brains processing function is what
nourishes and develops the brain itself. How the brain processes sensory information, Faith Brynie
clarifies, is not simply a matter of the brain controlling the senses; the senses actually stimulate brain
development. For example, the brains soundprocessing centers mature properly only when sound
impulses trigger them to do so, which is why cochlear implants are best used before the age of three.[10]
Once concepts depend on sensory information and on the brains processing ability, which equals to
brains development, it is crucial this is the first crucial point to clarify that without the senses
stimulation and brains development caused by the senses stimulation there would have been no
conceptual forming.
Brain matures in forming concepts when sensorially triggered and,
subsequently, stimulated to its own development (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9).
However, it is each individuals brain development and perception responsible for each brains way of
forming concepts. Mitchell Green specifies that the idea that you perceive with your mind actually
contains two ideas inside it. First its that the senses are really part of the mind, not external to it.
Second, its that all of our perception is driven, colored, and guided by our interests, needs, aims, and
sometimes even biases. For better or worse, your mind is there at work all the time when you perceive,
not in the backseat receiving information, but guiding, interpreting, coloring and casing your world.[24]
Hence, the sense we make when forming concepts is deeply influenced by our memories, experience,
and particularly brain circuitry. This way of forming concepts commences with the persons senses
reception and, through the brains development, ends with the persons senses perception (Fig. 10).
- 21 -
Leaving alone in how many directions the brain works while perceiving, it is very precise to say that
the brain is there at work all the time when one perceives; this happens precisely and ceaselessly
regardless of whether one is aware of this brains process at work or not. Therefore, we are not
consciously aware of most of the things that brain perceives. Then what is the role of awareness and
attention? The brain perceives a huge volume of things but we become aware of them only if we
consciously direct our attention to them. When we do focus our attention on them, they are placed in
our working memory.[57]
This proposition concludes to, although we become aware of only a part of the stimulus
things, only of the ones we direct our attention to, the brain is been developed regardless of the things
we become aware of, but in regards of the things the brain perceives of. This is the second crucial
point with three conclusions:
a.
We are subordinated to our brain development which, besides the conscious controlled
process, is also based on the unconscious automated process.
b.
We are wrongly subjected to the impression that it is our efforts and hard work that develops
our brain abilities resulting in forming concepts, not to mention yet our perceptions.
c.
Once our efforts are performed on the paying attention base, our efforts result in becoming
conscious of things we are not yet; hence, our efforts do not aim to form new concepts nor to brains
development but to become aware of concepts, or things in general, that the brain has already
obtained and perceived.
There is a third crucial point; we obtain concepts and understanding based on the brains automated
development of unconscious perception, not only on our controlled process of conscious awareness;
the difference between the two defines the meaning of perception. This difference between controlled
and uncontrolled process is the third crucial point and it greatly distances what Susan Schneider
states as anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making
conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives[55] from what
Walter Schneider defines as controlled process, in contrast to automated attention response, a
temporary sequence of nodes activated under control of, and through attention by, the subject.[49],[50]
This difference obliges us to pursue the ultimate concern, if not to control and manage the brains
processing work, at least to control the way to develop a gradual consciousness of a greater range of
things, or of a greater area of consciousness itself regardless of the things applied, and/or to access to
a greater area of the brain itself; a strong case can be made that we can create access to any part of
the brain by way of conscious input[61], Zelazo points out. Many preach and claim to have a way to
guide development of ones control over some part of ones brain including, but not limited to,
personal improvement consultants, mind control gurus, metaphysicists, parapsychologists, mystics,
even theologians, but there is no confirmed scientific verification for any of these methods. The
people promoting these type of methods need to land on earth and embrace the brains operational
development, especially the aforementioned difference, should they wish to sound practical aiming to
rational average person. Why? for one only reason! No matter which method one pursues to personal
growth and development, either scientific, theological, spiritual, metaphysical, or else, one thing is the
fact: no personal growth will happen unless the brain develops and grows either for the purpose to be
able to experience or for the purpose to contain and carry the results of the growth in action. On the
other hand, scientific methods or approaches cannot proceed and conclude if they overlook and
ignore the aforementioned difference between automated process and controlled attention. It would
be of huge importance to note here that it is because of this uncontrolled automated process that the
brains development and brains process is beyond our control. This element is of huge importance
and sets the presuppositions for the practical solution approached further below in this article, in
section (ZF). Therewithal, we come to one recognition: the cause the process and the outcome, all
- 22 -
three stages of the learning process, which is consisted of the persons stimulation the persons
development and the persons conceptual forming, happen in their entirety in the individuals brain,
inside ones own self. Unlike this fact, factuality appears different. No one feels or senses at any time
that any piece of any stimulus occurs in the brain or anywhere inside ones self! We are under the
impression that all phenomena occur where matters happen, not inside the brain but in front of us
(Fig. 11), in the outside world. We unquestionably and strongly believe that phenomena occur where
the information come from, where we touch the things and perform the work with them, outside us,
moreover outside our brain! For example, I see and understand in my brain this tree out there, I
understand the distance between me and the tree in my brain, I also understand my body standing in
my brain, and without this brain none of this could be understood; but I dont feel or sense at any
time that any part of this occurs inside my brain or generally inside me. In spite I think that all of
this occurs out there, where the impression and information of the tree comes from. Why that? If all
things occur in the brain, why we never sense so. Lets see what really happens.
ZD.
We acknowledge that to understand a concept we need a Person ( in
Greek), the entity which attempts to understand the concept; then we need the objects, the articles
that will provide the sensory data to form the concept, collectively named here Articles (
in Greek) that are usually identified by a schema (Fig. 12). Furthermore, we acknowledge the impact
of several surrounding situations, for example adequate light, health level of the person, weather
conditions, regulations, and so on, that are collectively named Situations ( in Greek); those
are also Articles, objects, but are named differently because usually are not identified them by a
schema (Fig. 12). For example, you enter in a dark attic; at the far right corner, behind you, you hear
a noise; there is an Article, an object! According to what you know already, you formulate a concept
about that Article that, for example, this is a squirrel. This primary concept is formed because
without our concepts and perceptions we would have no knowledge of the outside world. This first
formulation, the idea of a squirrel, is the first concept in your brain; however, because Situations are
not there, this primary piece of concept you have formed is not specified. The Person is there, the
Article something is there, Situations though are not there. The cycle cannot be completed, you feel
not satisfied; you now set out the cycle again. On a second effort, you start the cycle again while
using what you already know: the concept of the squirrel. In a new attempt you perceive again
striving to specify the Article. Lets sustain that it is impossible again, e.g. it is dark; you realize
again Situations do not meet yet. While you hold on your first concept of a squirrel, you keep trying
again and again until Situations meet. Eventually, at a point your eyes adjust in the dark
environment and can focus better; you are now able to specify this is a fan, it is not a squirrel.
Situations have met, concept has been formed and specified from the Situations; cycle is completed,
you feel satisfied. Summarizing, this is what happens between those three agents: first the Person, in
an effort to understand, sets out the process of forming a concept by perceiving at the Article (Fig.
13); subsequent, the Article appears its properties and attributions at the Situations; last, the
Situations form an understanding and specify a concept, or piece of knowledge, at the Person (Fig.
13). So each of those agents starts a function at another, corresponding objective, agent while the
outcome appears as a completion at the end of the cycle, not as a result of the Persons function at the
Article.
This summary draws very well the interplay between the three agents, and shows that besides
the relationship between the three agents PAS (or in Greek) there are also the relationships
between the three functions, their interplay pas (or in Greek). The functions abbreviation
stands for perception (), appearance (), specification ().
For example, a Person enters in a bathtub with water. While entering the bathtub, the Person
perceives the Article all over on several of its properties without specifics, for example the color of
the water, the water movement, and so on, creating a concept about it in a vague way, same as in the
- 23 -
example of the squirrel; the only function taking place in this phase is perception. While perceiving
at the water, the water appears its attributions, such as the rising of its level, or the shape of the leg
entering the water, or the quantity of the displaced water, and more elements that would never appear
unless the Person had begun perceiving it; perception continues into this second phase and along
with the appearance are the only functions taking place (Fig. 14).
Similarly, as Situations unfold to form a concept and the understanding at the Person, perception
continues in this third phase; this is how the Person is able to observe the Situations and the specified
concept when it would occurs; also appearance continues in this third phase, this is why the water
and its properties are still observed. In this third phase all three functions, perception, appearance
and specification take place together (Fig. 14). At last, the Situations form at the Person the concept
and the understanding of the rule of buoyancy. Situations have met, concept has been specified, cycle
is completed, the Person feels satisfied and runs out naked shouting Eureka! Now, this
specification, of the rule of buoyancy, is triggered by what? It is not triggered by the Person because
if so then the specification of the concept would be available at the Person from the Person anytime,
not only on kairos and the Person wouldnt have to try in repeated efforts, in frequentative cycles,
until to understand the concept. Also, this specification of the rule of buoyancy is not triggered by
the Article, the water, because if so the Person would observe the buoyancy at the water, as an
attribution, and wouldnt need to wait until Situations mature, hence, no Eureka would have
occurred; the discovery would have been a matter of observing the Article and the rethinking or re
setting out the cycle would not be needed in the process. This specification was triggered by the
Situations.
Conclusion: The Person sets out the process by perceiving at the Article and Person comes
first in the scene; then comes the Article. Situations follow next formulating the understanding and
specifying the concept.
ZE.
After the Person has obtained the first concept, Person is enriched by knowing and
understanding more. We may depict this Persons enrichment with an enlarger point, a little circle, at
the Persons position (Fig. 15). Similarly, we may depict the other two agents with enlarger points,
with circles, because after the Person has formed a concept and understands more, the Person can
perceive more elements and properties at the Article, hence, the Article appears in more details and
enriched; likewise, after the Person has formed a concept and understands more, the Person can
perceive more elements and properties at the Situations, hence, the Situations appear finer and
enriched (Fig. 16).
- 24 -
This last diagram shows that because the agents grow as concepts, enriched by the understanding of
the Person, they begin approaching each other and the distance between them begins to lessen. This is
how the Person perceives them, once the Person understands them in more detail and enriched. As
the circles continue growing more, at a moment abut each other (Fig. 17). This is the beginning of a
new era and it tell us that now the Person is able to abut, to affect, the Article; likewise the
Situations. Perception transmutes from just learning by perceiving, observing, thinking to
affecting by advancing, touching, abutting; perception transmutes and adjusts from knowing
how to knowing that of the experiential and experimental research. It is called scientific
approach. The Person is now able to abut and affect climate (Fig. 18), food, DNA and more elements
that couldnt do before.
When food is the Article, the Person can abut and affect it making artificial food, not only study it
and live according to the nature of the food. When climate is the Article, the Person perceives
photochemical events, volcanic injection, ozone destruction and can abut and affect it impacting the
climate, not only study it and live according to climates nature (Fig. 18). When biology is the
Article, the Person perceives the DNA and can abut and effect it creating clones, not only study it
and act according to DNAs nature. The schism of atom and the nuclear energy is the result of such
abutment touch and Persons affect at the Article. In vindication of this premise, the way we live
today fits perfectly in this stage. As the circles grow more, they begin to intersect one another (Fig.
19).
- 25 -
This is the beginning of another new era and it tell us that now part of the Article becomes part of
the Person; the Person now is able to perceive the Article inside himself, as part of the enlarger
himself (Fig. 19). In ordinary terms we may say, the objective perception becomes intuitive
internal perception; the Person finds out that Article actually becomes part of his enriched and
enlarger entity and can perceive it inside him. This is the reality referred at the end of section (ZC)
when I formed the question if all things occur inside the brain, inside us, why dont we ever sense
so?
ix.
the IN.
ZF.
What is this Inside where the Person is now able to perceive the Article? How can
we actualize or feel this Inside, this In? Its easy to approach a first experience of this In with a
simple experiment. As one speaks, or you hear any sound anyway, push gently the part between the
ear lobe and the mastoid bone (Fig. 20). Do it in a way to close the auditory canals of both ears (Fig.
21). While the auditory canals are closed, try to hear the same speaking voice or the same sound.
Where do you hear the sound? Canals are closed, you hear the sound inside you, in your head! You
hear the sound like when you get cold and your ears are clogged. Now, release the pressure from the
auditory canals and try to reproduce the same inside hearing while the sound or the speaking voice
continues; hear this sound again inside your head but without the assistance of the ears canals. It
happens now that for first time you experience processing a thing inside your brain. Nothing is
changed except the location of reception of this sensory information. This is the first experience of
the In and the proof of its existence. But what is the challenge now? The challenge is that if we
peruse this In and get to know how to use it in other occasions, then we could understand things at
- 26 -
the place where understanding actually happens, that is inside! Doing so we dont have to carry the
distance between inout on every single stimulus as we currently do. This is revolutionary. Setting
the parameters for the In is an ambitious research project to be completed in the future. For now
lets briefly refer to some of its properties[32]. Every person, no matter who this person is, knows the
In! Every person understands in the room, in the car, in the city, in the dreams. This in
outside us is the same in in the brain, to which we turn when we concentrate, when we want to
think, to feel, to balance. The surroundings change, but the content of those surroundings, the In,
remains the same.
In is one.
It is not begotten.
It is always present, here, now.
It is omnipresent.
It is dimensionless.
It is indefinable.
It is immaterial.
It never changes.
It never dies.
It doesnt need to be taught.
If it is true that such stable and perpetuated attributions characterize the Truth, the one Truth, the
Aletheia ( in Greek), then the In is the Truth. Nobody knows the Truth so far; however
everybody knows the In, that is, the common inside.
x.
the SCIENTIFICS of the In.

ZG.
Can the In be formed scientifically? Can we mathematize or physicalize the In?
Yes, we can. In math we know that the fastening of a real function and an imaginary function makes
the complex plane. In reality, we know that any sensory function in the outside world spurs a
concept inside the Person which is an imaginary function in the brain, inside us. Hence, any function
in the real world a real function is fastened with an imaginary function, the one that the real spurs
in the brain. Therefore any matter in the world we live consists a mathematical complex plane, of
which real part is the real outside function, in the sensory world, and its imaginary part is the
inside imaginary function in the brain. However, in Mathematics, any function on a complex plane
can be extended to a continuous function in the Riemann sphere, with the poles of the function
mapping to infinity. Especially, any meromorphic function can be thought of as a continuous
function whose codomain is the Riemann sphere. Graphically, in a 3D-plot Gamma function (Fig.
22), the real function of the sensory outside world is depicted on the right side of the 00 axis; it is
the wall part on the right of this figure. On the left side of the same 00 axis is its corresponding
imaginary function; it is the towers part across the wall; towers and wall are deployed on
both sides of the said 00 axis, which we can thought of as a mirror type of medium; the whole
complex is the Riemann sphere consisted of the Real and the Imaginary of the Out and of the In
functions fastened together, which makes the Within, with the poles to infinity (Fig. 22). Below,
there are two more images of a Gamma function.
1H
2H
The one (Fig. 23) clarifies how the realitywall and the imaginarytowers are deployed and shows
how the reality can be transmitted in the brain; it also shows how different the two worlds are while
- 27 -
there is a concentrated and orderly interrelation between them, both of which are to be explored. The
second image (Fig. 24) schemes very well, for the time and the level we know these things yet, the
multiform qualities one matter of reality takes when it is transformed in the imaginary world of the
brain; the blue color wall depicts the matter from the sensory outside world of reality, brightly
designed with its meaningful white center on its base, while the colors of the towers, including their
base in shades of lavender, depict the qualities in the imaginary function of the brain spurred by this
one lone concept, the blue concept from the sensory world.
This figure (Fig. 24) shows what we have experienced, practically not methodically, already; that is,
how one lone matter from the outside world can open many diversified concepts and qualities in the
imaginary; have we not experienced that? Therewithal, is understandable that any matter on the
outside can be schemed and thought of as a meromorphic function which its imaginary part is the
corresponding function in the inside, the part in the brain. That institutes this outside function
of as a continuous function in this codomain, in this Riemann sphere, the Within, no matter what
function this outside function is as a matter of the real world, continuous or discontinuous. With
this work, we have just shaped the Outside, the In, and the Within; but most importantly we
have drawn the way to transform the outside problems to continuous functions, even when they are
discontinuous functions, by extending them in a Riemann sphere, which is the Within. This simply
means that unsolved problems of the outside world, as being discontinuous functions, can be solved
by transforming them to continuous functions when subsuming them in the Within. Meaning that
by adding the Within in our life, we will be able to solve the outside problems that now remain
unresolved. The preceding work, in the section (ZG), proves that the Within is the fastening of the
two worlds, the real and the imaginary, and without this fastening, Within wouldnt exist; it also
shows that by adding the Within as codomain, the discontinuous functions can be transformed to
continuous, therefore the unresolved matters can be resolved. As corollary, the conclusion is that by
counting and adding the imaginary world, as it has been analyzed in all sections, from(A) to (ZF), we
can rely on this missing factor to resolve the problems and proceed in Societal Change. This is the
practical solution, I referred in section (ZC), above. This is the transformation the man has to carry,
if the man hopes to see societal change happening. As, in mathematics, the world inside the mirror,
showing motion replicative to the motions outside the mirror therefore life, has to be explained and it
can be explained with the imaginary numbers fastened on the real numbers (the images in the real
world outside the mirror), whereby the complex numbers are created, likewise the world on the mind
inside the brain, motioned replicative to the motions outside the brain, can be explained with the
imaginary functions fastened on the real functions (the images in the real sensorial world outside the
mind), whereby the complex functions are created. Unexpectedly, scientists have started already to
consider such approach and define scientifically the In.
Mathematics: Dainis Zeps, of Mathematical institute of Riga in Latvia, notifies us: Life
itself would live in this common essence of two as if distinct states. Mathematically, this would
mean that there are not two points on Riemann sphere, two poles, but one common entity that would
be represented with two distinct poles. Physically we would think that reality is this common state
quality but their subdivision into two states is some representation of reality which take place when life
- 28 -
accidence emerges in the reference system of life. Thus, we have come to principle of equivalence of
these two points, and the equivalence of point of eye and heavenly firmament. We would like to call
it inside outside equivalence principle.[64] Dainis continues, Mathematics comes in agreement with
lifes in general point of view, but actually both things are the same, our equations only being some
approximations to general worldsystem mentioned by Rudolf Steiner. May inside=outside give
something nontrivial apart from trivial interpretation? When physicists came to particle=wave
solution in appearance of quantum mechanics, they had to overcome nontrivial counterintuitive idea
of particle wave duality.[64] Dainis concludes, Mbius transform type applications and all of them
mathematically embody as if inside outside unite in something one. For this reason we consider one
version of Mbius transform, namely, Riemann sphere and, specifically, with application to heavenly
sphere.[64] If insideoutside is something one, what would this one be and why do we see them as
different? At the Gamma function analysis above, I have manifested the concept of insideoutside
and its oneness; it is named Within.
Following a line of research that I have developed for several years,
Quantum Physics:
I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical
world where the notion of time plays no role at all. I summarize here this point of view, explaining
why I think that in a fundamental description of nature we must forget time, and how this can be
done in the classical and in the quantum theory[46], states Carlo Rovelli, of University of Rome in
Italy; referring to his classic book Quantum Gravity, 2004 he continues I have argued for this
point of view in the past in a number of papers [213], and in the book[14]([48]). However, I have
never tried to articulate this point of view in a compact, direct, and selfcontained way. I take
therefore the opportunity of the FQXi contest for doing so.[46]. Concluding on how we can build a
quantum theory of gravity, Carlo Rovelli in this essay, states, VII. CONCLUSION. I have
presented a certain number of ideas and results: 1. , 2. , 3. , (and continues) 4. In order to build
a quantum theory of gravity the most effective strategy is therefore to forget the notion of time all
together, and[46] Prior to these statements, Carlo Rovelli spoke about the space at the Plank space,
Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to implement this subtle relational notion of spacetime
localization in quantum field theory. The part of the theory which is not yet fully under control is the
dynamics, which is determined by the Hamiltonian constraint.[48]. However, he states, Space and
time in some sense melt in this picture. There is no space anymore. There are just quanta kind of
living on top of one another without being immersed in a space.[14] There is no space anymore? Is
this possible? If there is no Space anymore, where would these quanta exist? In the dimensionless,
yet spacious, In!
Rovellis work and above words, Space and time in some sense
Biocommunications:
[14]
melt. There is no space anymore , have been proved true by Cleve Backsters experiments designed
to create genuine states of emotion inside a mans body. These experiments were reportedly
conducted by the military in a program developed by a scientist named Cleve Baxter (details appear in
the Journal of MindBody Health, volume 9, 193). In the experiment the donor was placed in one
room and subjected to emotional stimulation that consisted of a selection of video clips presented to
generate a variety of emotions in the viewer. As part of the experiment the donors blood cells were
placed in a different room within the same building occupied by the person. Both the donor and his
cells monitored at the same time during the experiment. The results demonstrated that as the donor
exhibited emotional peaks or valleys as measured by electrical responses, his blood cells in a separate
room exhibited the identical responses at the exact moment. There was no lag time between responses
and no transmission time took place. The reaction of donor and blood cells sample was
simultaneous.[25] The US Army discontinued the experiments but Cleve Baxter continued the
experiments at even greater distances up to 350 miles (560 km) between the donor and the DNA
sample. Furthermore, the time between the donors experience and the cells response was gauged by
an atomic clock located in Colorado. In each experiment, the interval measured between the emotion
and the cells response was zero ...the effect was simultaneous! Whether the cells were in the same
room or separated by hundreds of kilometers, the results were the same. When the donor had an
emotional experience, the DNA reacted as if it were still connected to the donors body in some way.
While this may sound quite weird, consider what this means. It means that there must be some sort of
a connecting field linking all matter so that everything must be and must remain connected.[31] The
question is Why? If Rovelli claims there is no space and the separated DNA acts like there is no
space between DNA and its donor, where does all this happen? In this sort of a connecting field; in
the one dimensionless, yet spacious, In!
- 29 -
Selforganizing systems (SOS): In the context of what N. Georgantzas precisely introduces as

SOS[18], Wayne Holland describes, There are indeed many things going on within us (inside) that we
have very little control over. The stuff is going on inside, to be sure, but somehow (because it is
beyond our control) it feels as if it is outside.[28] It feels as if it is outside, but its not? Does this
mean outside is an illusion? We feel it as if it is outside because we do not control the happenings
inside?
ZH.
What are the results, should we form concepts exactly where the actual process
happens, in the inside? Using the In, we are able to form concepts and obtain understanding in a
different way, what are the results of such application? Such understanding now can come true and
make a difference, but do we have any indications or occasions where such way of understanding has
been used before? Has anybody done this before? Yes, many have; there are many references that
precious concepts and paramount understanding were obtained in the In. In effect, some of the
most crucial and difficult discoveries were obtained like this! However, it happened accidentally
because these scientists obtained answers from the In by working hard with diligence, not that they
knew the In existed as an independent agent. Here is a short list of such renown discoveries.
We know that Poincares conjecture was formed intuitively in 1904
Henri Poincar:
but was proved, 100 years later, just in 2003 by Grigori Perelman. The crucial idea came to Poincar
as he was about to get onto a bus, he relates in his Science and Method, 1908[43]. At the moment
when I put my foot on the step the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming
to have paved the way for it, that the transformation that I had used to define the Fuchsian functions
were identical with those of noneuclidean geometry. The success of his approach to mathematics
lay in his passionate intuition. He believed that logical argument is the only means to confirm insights.
Poincar believed that formal proof alone cannot lead to knowledge. It is reasonable to ask what
Poincar meant by intuition. To explain what intuition was in mathematics, Poincar fell back on
saying it was the part which did not follow by logic, ...to make geometry ...something other than pure
logic is necessary. To describe this something we have no word other than intuition. [43] Wow!
Mathematician succeeded thanks to his intuition, not to his logic? I thought only artists, like Mozart,
supposed to do that!
It is amazing to note that Bohr was revealed the clue of his momentous
Neils Bohr:
theory in a dream, which he saw in 1919. He once dreamt that he was standing right inside the
corona of the Sun surrounded by boiling gases and vapors; and many planets were orbiting around
him. ...This dream gave the much soughtfor hint to Bohr to visualize the nucleus of an atom and
the orbits of its particles moving around this core.[56] In a dream? In other words inside himself,
not outside with an experiment; in the In?
Friedrich August Kekul: In 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate
appreciation in Kekul's honor. Here Kekul spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had
discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or daydream of a snake
seizing its own tailthis is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the ouroboros (Fig.
25). This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carboncarbon bonds.[45]
QUESTION: How was it important for you, Professor Kekul?

KEKUL: Well, I arrived in 1853 and soon met several other former students of Liebig. The one
who became a great friend was A. W. Williamson. We had many interesting discussions on chemistry.
Indeed, I believe that our discussions and those I had with another friend, Mueller, influenced my
own vision which happened in London and the subsequent elucidation of the tetravalency of carbon
and the ability of carbon atoms to form chains.
QUESTION: Can you tell me more about this vision to which you have referred?
KEKUL: Surely! Let me read to you the remarks I am about to make to the assembly today:
- 30 -
During my stay in London I resided in Clapham Road... I frequently, however, spent my

evenings with my friend Hugo Mueller... We talked of many things but most often of our beloved
chemistry.
One fine summer evening I was returning by the last bus, riding outside as usual, through the
deserted streets of the city... I fell into a reverie, and lo, the atoms were gamboling before my eyes.
Whenever, hitherto, these diminutive beings had appeared to me, they had always been in
motion. Now, however, I saw how, frequently, two smaller atoms united to form a pair: how a
larger one embraced the two smaller ones; how still larger ones kept hold of three or even four of
the smaller: whilst the whole kept whirling in a giddy dance. I saw how the larger ones formed a
chain, dragging the smaller ones after them but only at the ends of the chains...
The cry of the conductor: Clapham Road awakened me from my dreaming; but I spent a part
of the night in putting on paper at least sketches of these dream forms. This was the origin of the
Structural Theory . Of course I wasn't ready to publish at that time dreams need to be
practically tested in the real world but I had the beginnings of my theory.[45]
When fell asleep? In other words inside himself, not outside with an experiment; again in the
In?
Michael Faraday:
As a child Faraday's formal education was cut short by a series of
dramatic events. Unfourtunely for young Michael the educational philosophy of the day was, Spare
the whip spoil the child. This combined with a speech impediment that prevented him from
pronouncing his R's, lead to a traumatic experience which Michael would never forget. One morning
the schoolmaster beat the child so severely that he could not move off the classroom floor. As they
entered the classroom, young Michael still lying on the floor, the Mother became furious. Mrs.
Faraday marched out carrying little Michael with Robert trailing behind lashing out at the
schoolmaster, Mrs. Faraday leaving public education forever. Faraday did not have a background in
sophisticated mathematics consequently he does not articulate his discovery through a complex
equation. Faraday describes his discovery to us as a visual image of Lines of force which create an
Electro magnetic field or fields of gravity. [41]
Socrates:
In Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have inside him a
daimonion that frequently warned him, as a voice, against mistakes but never told him what to do.
I happen to disagree with some of Stokes's remarks about the differences between Socrates'
daimonion as presented in Plato and Xenophon, but I appreciate that it is I who am in a minority on
this. For Stokes, as for most other commentators, Xenophon differs from Plato in that (a)the
daimonion not only warns against certain actions, but positively endorses certain actions; (b)the
daimonion can help Socrates' friends, not just Socrates himself; and (c)the daimonion is assimilated
to other Greek divinatory techniques, rather than being, as far as we know, unique to Socrates.[40]
What did Socrates mean by mentioning the daimonion inside him? Is the In an independent
entity that lives inside us, a voice that can guide us?
Otto Loewi and John Eccles:
Inspiration from dreams has been reported from diverse
fields of human activity including music, literature, mathematics and science. In the area of
neuroscience, two dreams stand out as examples in which scientific enquiry has been facilitated by
creative ideas which came during sleep. The dreams of Otto Loewi (18731961) and John Eccles
(19031997) demonstrate how their discoveries related to synaptic transmission were directed at a
pivotal stage by such inspiration. These dreams highlight the intriguing question of how the brain
continues to work whilst asleep.[54]
Therewithal, I need to form an elucidation. By referring to dreams, visions, reveries,
daimonion, I do not preach metaphysics; I just claim that once the aforementioned important
references occurred inside these people, they were obtained in the In; also I claim that in the most
crucial cases stepping inside to resolve issues obstacles and problems looks inevitable. This is
indisputable by wording at least! However, if I preach something, in here, is that the In exists as a
decisive independent agent, can be defined scientifically as I showed with the Gamma function, and
can solve our problems as I also showed with the extendibility of those problems in the Riemann
sphere; this is why the In is very much related to the Transformation and, as corollary, to Societal
Change.
ZI.
New prospects arise from the perspective of the In. Briefly, some of the new
prospects are presented next:
1.
This powerful function of these three agents PAS allows us to consider them as Systems,
actually Dynamic Systems, and can be studied like this.
2.
The three agentssystems are actually spheroids and the functionsconnections between them
are spirals or of an arc orbit; they are not on straight line as I have drawn them.
- 31 -
3.
Amazingly, the Article does not specify any concept at the Person, but Situations do (Fig.
14). Therefore a concept or, to use contemporary wording, solutions to a problem, cannot come by
working on the Article, but by working on the Situations. I guess this is why when Government
needs more money shouldnt tax the people more.
4.
This process is repetitively endless and each phase occurs in long periods of time in the
mankind history.
5.
During this long motion the Systems dont grow isometrically.
6.
There are many details arising about the relationship between the three agentssystems and
their functions. For example, the distance ap (Fig. 14) differs for each Person. Other than that this
impacts the development of the next stage SP, it also specifies the very own personality of each
person; it specifies the distance between a, the appeared phenomenon, and p, the Persons
perception in action; but the distance between appeared phenomenon and perception of the
phenomenon is what defines distanced observation; so the this distance is the distance of
calmness or, better, selfpossession while things occur. This is the known Persons detachment.
7.
Such analyses, like the distance between the functions, in number 6. above, reshape some
known definitions in parts of Science with the potential of new dimensions; for example,
Philosophy can be redefined as the relationship between the three agents, PAS, that is, the ongoing
process between them; but Psychology can be redefined as the relationship between the three
functions, pas, that is, the distance between them while developing, as in the example of number 6.
above.
8.
The first impression is that, according to the exhibited phases in creating a concept (Fig.
1219, above), as mankind we have been already In and we follow an orbit from inner to outer.
Saying this, I connote that the use of the In has already occurred with the amazing achievements in
philosophy, science and art of the ancient ages, that we probably now tend to forget or dont
understand very well. The understanding of pieces from Plato, Sybille, Pythagoras, Ictinus and
Callicrates has disappeared or starts to disappear; but we experience the abutment of the Article and
interference in the Articles nature. The first impression is that we lose brightness loudness and
understanding on concepts given from obsolete philosophers, obtained unknowingly how but surely
from inside them, and gradually such concepts disappear while interference and artificial influence
on all Articles around us is all what we currently do. The first impression is that the circles follow
digressive development; probably the Universe also.
9.
The Persons pursuing things outside them, in a distance from the Article (Fig. 16), are the
materialists or scientists. The Persons pursuing things inside them, inside part of themselves (Fig.
19), are the spiritualists or mystics. With the aforementioned definitions, they dont contradict or
oppose one another; they all consist part of the same process in different stages.
10.
With such analyses, analogous to scientistsmystics, in number 9. above, contradictions in
any sector of the mankind life can be redefined and take a position, as of a different stage, in the same
process, instead of the usual contradicting position of the other pole, in a relationship of duality.
With such analyses duality becomes illusionary, contradiction is eliminated and the appeared, as
components of oppositepolesofaduality, entities become entities of the same process, in different
phases. This is unification! Unification and Understanding arises from the In. Two contradicting
poles are actually of the same nature and serve the same aim in just different timeous and spacious
frame. Dualistic contradictions converge to unified interrelated phases of one solid Articles process
and controversies converge to comprehension, hence, the said unification.
11.
The urge is to boost the further scientific research of the In. Scientists are able now to set
the parameters of the In scientifically and enter in its aisles. It is the momentum to reaffirm and
reinstate the In in its broadest position, to explain it, and endue it with science. Esoteric and
exoteric aspects and views, instead of dualistic contradictions, become phases in the same
development on seeking Aletheia.
12.
The urge is also that spiritualists, theologians, consultants, mystics, and ascetics research the
outside based on the inside that they already pursue. OutsideInside are one, and if all these
guys fail in their labor, while they sound above ground, is because they pursue just the half of what
they suppose to. This is what makes their labor hard and this is why God is inexorable![16].
13.
There are many more, than the known and mentioned scholars, who applied the perspective
of the In throughout the ages of mankind history, although they never considered the In as an
independent agent. Names include, but not limited to, Michael Psellos, Ioannes Vatatzes, Gemistos
Plethon, Niketas Choniates.
14.
The finding and application of the In is dissident; it is also sublimed to the degree that
leaves people wordless; it is simple, therefore it can be ignored! The May 6th 2010 email of Thomas
Altizer to me (Fig. 26) is representative of the peoples stance when they first hear about the In.
- 32 -
There is no real opinion about this. But of course!

xi.
the FACT in the SOCIETY model.

ZJ.
In the Society, Information, Ideas, and Impressions are received, all the time, from
all surroundings by the several agencies departments and organizations, all of which I name
administers, and we process all of them in the Government. In fact, the Governments processing
operation is what nourishes and develops the Government itself. The structure and graphics I used to
present the brains procedure to forming concepts, in section (ZC), which ended to unearthing the
In, find a precise application and rigorous replica in this section, applied in the Societys brain, the
Government. Hence, if one wonders what did especially manifest the following wording and syntax
about the Government, one needs to return to section (ZC) and locate precisely the respective points
excerpts or figures; I have used them replicative, probably jeopardizing the accuracy of the notions,
for the sole purpose to presumably demonstrate the respectiveness between the individuals brain and
the Societys Government, based on both natures tripartite structure. How the Government
develops with apprehended information, is not simply a matter of the Government controlling its
several administers and their feedback; the administers actually stimulate Government development.
For example, the mediaprocessing centers mature properly only when news impulses trigger them to
do so which is why news processing channels are best used before they become three years old. Once
governmental development depends on Societal administers and on the Governments processing
ability, which equals to Governments development, it is crucial, this is the first crucial point, to
clarify that without the Societal administers stimulation and Governments development caused by
the administers stimulation there would have been no Societal conception. Government matures in
developing when administrated triggered and, subsequently, stimulated to its own development. An
idea of such interrelation shows the figure (Fig. 27).
However, it is each Societys conception and perception responsible for each Governments way of
development. The idea that Society develops with its Government governing actually contains two
ideas inside it. First its that the Governments administers are really part of the Government, not
external to it. Second, its that all of our Governments development is driven, colored, and guided by
the Societys interests, needs, aims, and sometimes even biases. For better or worse, the Government
is there at work all the time when Society develops, not in the backseat receiving information, but
- 33 -
guiding, interpreting, coloring and casing Societys world. Hence, the sense the Government makes
when developing is deeply influenced by Societys memories, experience, and particularly
Government circuitry. This way of Societal conception commences with the Societys administers
reception and, through the Governments development, ends with the Societys administrative
perception (Fig. 28).
Leaving alone in how many directions the Government works while developing, it is very precise that
the Government is there at work all the time when Society perceives and forms concepts; this
happens precisely and ceaselessly regardless of whether Society is aware, or controls, this
Governments process at work or not. This leads us to realize that we are not aware of, and we do not
publicly control, most of the things the Government obtains; in other words, there is no transparency.
Then what is the role of participation and democratization? The Government obtains a huge volume
of things but we become aware of them only if we transparently participate to them. When we do
focus with transparency on them, they are placed in our working Societal conception. This concludes
to, although we become aware of only a part of the things, only of the ones we participate to, the
Government develops regardless of the things we publicly control, but in regards of the things the
Government obtains of. This is the second crucial point with three conclusions:
a.
We are subordinated to our Government development which, besides the transparent publicly
controlled process, is also based on the nontransparent nonpublicly controlled process.
b.
We are subjected wrongly to the impression that it is our participation and hard work that
develops our Government abilities resulting in forming Societal concepts, not to mention yet our
Societal perceptions.
c.
Once our efforts are performed on the participation base, our efforts result in transparency;
hence, our efforts do not aim to forming more concepts in advancing the Society nor to effect the
Governments way of development but to become aware, to enforce transparency, of concepts or
things in general, that the Government has already obtained and perceived.
There is a third crucial point; Societal concepts and advancements are based on the Governments
nontransparent nonpublic controlled development, not only on the transparent public controlled
process of active participation; the difference between the two defines the Societal level of perception
and its quality. This difference between transparent and nontransparent process is the third crucial
point and it greatly distances the idea that anything that we participate of at a given moment forms
part of our Societal conception, making conception experience at once the most familiar and most
mysterious aspect of our lives from the idea of a temporary sequence of nodes activated under public
control of, and through participation by, the subject which defines the transparent controlled process
in contrast to nontransparent controlled process. This difference obliges us to pursue the ultimate
concern, if not to control and manage the Governments processing work, at least to control the way
to develop a gradual transparency of a greater range of things, or of a greater area of transparency
itself regardless of the things applied, and/or to access to a greater area of the Government itself; a
strong case can be made that we can create access to any part of the Government by way of
transparent input, I would say. Many preach and claim to have a way to guide development of
Societys control over some integrals of the Government including, but not limited to, Governments
improvement strategies, antigovernment gurus, socialists, capitalists, anarchists, even religious
driven dominants, but there is no confirmed scientific verification for any of these methods. The
people promoting these types of theoretical or belief methods need to land on earth and embrace the
Governments operational development, especially the aforementioned difference, should they wish to
sound practical aiming to rational average person. Why? for one only reason! No matter which
- 34 -
method one pursues to societal growth and development, either scientific, theological, political
spiritual, or else, one thing is the fact: no societal growth will happen unless the Government
develops and grows either for the purpose to be able to legislate or for the purpose to absorb and carry
the results of the growth in action. On the other hand, political or scientific methods or approaches
cannot proceed and conclude if they overlook and ignore the aforementioned difference between non
transparent and transparent process. It would be of huge importance to note here that it is because of
this nontransparent process that the Governments development and Governments process is beyond
our control. This element is of huge importance and sets the presuppositions for the practical
solution approached further below in this article, in section (ZK). Therewithal, we come to one
recognition: the cause the process and the outcome, all three stages of the active citizenry process
which is consisted of the Societys stimulation the Societys development and the Societys conceptual
forming, happen in their entirety in the Societys brain, the Government, inside the nonpublic
Societys sector, not in the public sector. Unlike this fact, factuality appears different. No one feels
or senses at any time that any choice of peoples matters has been regulated in the Government or
another of the Societys administers! We are under the impression that all Societal matters and
concepts are regulated from the people, in the outside world (Fig. 29), not that are regulated from
inside the Government.
We unquestionably and strongly believe that Societal happenings and matters are chosen and
regulated from peoples choices, from where the ferment occurs, where the activities take place, where
we touch the things and perform the work with them, outside us, moreover outside the Government!
For example, we see and know that this school stands there because of the Governments regulations,
we understand the obligations between us and the school are because of the Governments regulations,
we also understand we have access to school because of the Governments regulations and without this
Government none of this could be regulated to our benefit, but we dont feel or sense at any time that
any part of this occurs because of the Government. In spite we think that all of this occurs outside
the Governments regulations, because of us. Why that? If all things are regulated in the Government,
why we never sense so. Lets see what really happens.
ZK.
Previous section (ZJ) was assembled purposely with the purpose to presumably
demonstrate the respective between person and Society, especially between the tripartite brain of the
person and the tripartite brain of the Society, the Government. This respective is precise enough to
generate even a little glossary of the depiction between the two (Fig. 30).
- 35 -
Reminding that we reached this point, (1)the prcised respective PersonSociety based on the fact
that the man makes things in his own image, (2)the attestation that the mans brain and the Societys
brain are of the same tripartite structure and (3)the respective depiction of the two in section (ZJ), I
will resume in drawing the answer to the societal change based upon the mans transformation. Let
you be aware that in the following paragraphs, using the concept and notion of the above glossary, I
depict latter excerpts with previous excerpts in an effort to specify, based on the In in the man, the
In in the societal entity respectively.
(Depiction 1) Case is made, for the man, in the previous sections (ZD) to (ZI), by presenting
the In and proposing to use the In, should we consciously be aware that all things in the broadest
possible sense of the term hang together in the brain, in the broadest possible sense of the term. Daily
we obtain this In in terms of Presupposition, Aid, Support at anytime; we close the eyes to enter
In when we have a problem and need to think, we enter In to sleep, we sleep better the inner we
fall asleep, we need the In of a house, an office, a car, a church if we want to operate safely and
conveniently, we close doors staying In when we need to concentrate, and, over all, everybody
knows it, no one needs to be particularly taught about it, and it is with us since moment one; because
we are born with this. Although I will admit the following few lines need to be proved and I will
leave their literal approach to an M.D.Philosopher, if one exists, I will unveil here that we all, as an
embryo, grow in the In of our mothers womb. According to the definition of embryo, from Greek
embruon : en-, in; + bruein, to be full to bursting[5], embryo means the being In ready to burst. By
the time we burst and exit in this world, suddenly we face many imageries; this is a shocking
antithesis between two environments, between the In of the dark warm apathetic loving womb and
the bright cold strenuous frigid world; this antithesis creates the impression of the outside;
although this outside idea is an illusion, an impression, because every single thing and matter
happens somewhere in, it is so shocking that dominates us for the rest of our life; since then we
assume that everything happens in the outside, as we experienced it at the very first moment of
birth, even when afterwards science or pseudoscience, spirituality or anything otherwise motivated,
assure us for its antithetical. We have tautologized the first experience of sensing worldly things with
the environment in which these things appear, defined, at the moment of the experience, as the
antithetical of the environment we grew as embryo.
Same depictive matter occurs for the Society. By the time Society is generated, by the time Society
bursts and appears in this world, suddenly people are impressed with so much traffic, growth and
development; this is an antithesis between two environments, between the quiet In of the pioneer
warm peaceful loving privacy somewhere, in a distance from the town and the bright energetic
frigid world of the town; this antithesis creates the impression of the outside, the common life
and its businesses matters, and gains more importance although everybody, at the end of the day, will
return to the In of the privacy to nourish, master and revitalize; this outside is an illusion, an
impression; it is not where things are regulated and it dominates us for the rest of our societal life;
since then we assume that any Societal matter happens in the outside as we experienced it at our
first Societal steps, even when afterwards scientists or pseudoscientists, or anyone otherwise
motivated, assure us for its antithetical.
(Depiction 2) The crucial points, in regards to Societal Change, in this essay are two: one for
the people in section (ZC), Unlike this fact, factuality appears different. No one feels or senses at
any time that any piece of data occurs in the brain or anywhere inside ones self! We are under the
impression that all phenomena occur where matters happen, not inside the brain but in front of us
(Fig. 11), in the outside world and the other for the Society in section (ZJ) Unlike this fact,
- 36 -
factuality appears different. No one feels or senses at any time that any choice of peoples matters has
been regulated in the Government or another of the Societys administers! We are under the
impression that all Societal matters and concepts are directed from the people, in the outside world
(Fig. 29), not that are directed from inside the Government. Both refer to transparency; the mans
brain, working on its own, does not provide transparency to its owner; the man needs to work to
gain consciousness on what the brain has obtained already. The Societys brain, the Government,
working on its own, does not provide transparency to its owner, the people; the people need to
work to gain transparency on what the Government has obtained already. In challenging the mans
brain opacity what people do? People try to achieve consciousness; they create ways, methods,
practices to boost consciousness; people fathom, research, teach, about the mans entity, and about
the brain, with the purpose to clarify and extract the truth of how things work in the brain; they
notice, report, document their findings and create systems, establishments and institutions that make
knowledge, understanding, consciousness available to people.
Exactly! This is the solution to societal transparency; this is the societal change and how the
societal change will occur. Same as above, in challenging the Governments opacity what people need
to do? The work to achieve and establish transparency; they need to create ways, methods, practices
to boost transparency; people need to fathom, research, teach, about the Societys entity, and about
the Government, with the purpose to clarify and extract the truth of how things work in the
Government; they need to notice, report, document their findings and create systems, establishments
and institutions that make knowledge, understanding, transparency available to people.
(Depiction 3) As the In exists, located primarily in the brain, and it is that where
everything personal happens but the man needs to bring it up as an independent agent and be aware
of it although it already works, so the societal In exists, located primarily in the Government, and it
is that where everything societal happens but the man needs to bring it up as an independent agent
and be aware of it although it already works. People, as they do with their brain pursuing all kind of
consciousness practices and awareness techniques, should start to be cognizant, of the data and the
knowledge that the Government obtains, and handle the flow of such information by creating another
branch, of which nature operation and structure I will examine briefly right below. People should put
their hands in the Cognitive sector of the Government, the sector where the secrets lay, by legislating
the creation and operation of a branch, an entity, that will have the authority to enter the
Governments and its administers departments those departments that collect and elaborate
information, data, knowledge and conclusions from their operations and further to take away this
function from the Government, separate this cognitive function from it, and handle it with
transparency. This is about bringing to light what now happens in the dark; this is a fourth branch,
which, like it happens with the In in the mans brain, it is there and works but it works in the dark
because nobody pays special attention to it, thinking it is intrinsic with the Governments job.
Primarily, this one conclusion should be understood: Chiefly, power springs from knowledge, not
from choice. Having choice is not where the power is, but having knowledge is where the power is.
Government handles the knowledge and always prevails over the people that handle the choice and
always lose. Knowledge is the power and who handles knowledge wont be defeated in the long run
regardless of any efforts or derogatoriness against it. It is so true what N. Georgantzas has invented
in the substantial work of his and G. Contogeorgis, SME-driven economies might lead to authentic
democracy[21], part of which is the shown astute figure (Fig. 31); it is so cognitive and appreciated to
learn from such ones insights and scientific work; however, according to this essay here, what part
in this figure is missing?
The missing part is the imaginary axis (Im)! The axis of the In, as presented in the Gamma
function plot, in Fig. 22, Fig. 23, Fig. 24 in section (ZG), is what is missing. This would be the
- 37 -
imaginary, the inside, the knowledge cognizant, the data handler, the imaginary axis in the
Societys brain of the Government. The three liberties interrelated with the rights in the
Georgantzass diagram constitute a very astute recognition, but how can they effect Societal Change
if the imaginary part, the cognitive presupposition and condition where those three liberties occur, is
missing? This Georgantzass figure (Fig. 31) connotes choice; all three liberties connote liberty to
choose and act; but the power is ensconced in knowledge, not in choice. This is the reason that in
spite of peoples occasional efforts, Government always prevails and gets, more and more, out of
peoples control.
ZL.
As the Legislative makes laws and the Judicial values the meaning of the laws, then
both direct the Executive branch how to perform its functions, so the fourth branch, the Cognitive
branch would evaluate the data and submit to Legislative branch the data useful to be legislated.
Doing so, the power will be withdrawn from the Legislative soma, because senators wont have the
power to legislate whatever think appropriate, and senators will remain with the power to do what
they suppose to do; to legislate, only, without the power to manipulate data and decide what to
legislate. The usefulness of this process lays in the fact that in the meantime the data would be
discussed and therefore available to public institutions, not in the dark sector of the brain of some
individuals behind a closed doors desk. Doing so, the power will be withdrawn also from the
Executive soma, because the public officials wont have the power to execute and perform whatever
they think, and they will remain with the power to do what they suppose to do; to execute and
perform, only, without the power to manipulate data and decide what applications and policies to be
conducted. The interchange between Executive and Legislative will be eliminated. The presence of
the Cognitive branch will eliminate the interplay between Executive and Legislative and will handle
knowledge and data by approving what the people decide to be legislated; the approved data would
be submitted to Legislative and become law. Then the Judicial can interpret them and the Executive
execute them. Secret Services information, Military applications, Economic statistics, Scientific
discoveries will be evaluated approved and forwarded to Legislative by the Cognitive soma. Overall,
such change would delegate to a fixed individual entity, to Cognitive, to recount what currently
happens in the dark aisles of some administer entity which nobody can point its location and its
scope exactly, will delegate to the Cognitive to evaluate what currently is being evaluated by people of
unknown morality and agenda, and will delegate to Cognitive to know what currently dominates
policies of unknown presuppositions and motivation. Same as with the mans brain, one needs to
understand that nothing in this essay points to politics or taking sides.
This is the practical solution I promised in section (ZK). This is what I meant when I stated
this is where this essay attempts to reach and shall conclude at the end, in sections (X) and (ZB). I
have come to this conclusion and, before I close this essay, it is important to clarify that although the
In in terms of the man and the Cognitive branch in terms of the Society are located in each of
those two entities brain, they are recognized everywhere, inside or outside from both brains, the
mans and the Government. Both are thought of a natural happening, innately embodied in mans
life or Societal life; nobody has thought of them, both, as independent agents. This is the difference
this essay makes. This is the difference the man is invited to make; the tripartite organization of
our nature should be updated with the fourth dimension, the imaginary, as exhibited above; doing so,
this imaginary missing axis, the In and the Cognitive branch, will become objectified and
handleable resulting in transparency since will be brought in the range of the consciousness and the
publiccontrol, respectively. The In and the Cognitive soma are the missing components of the
respective codomains the Riemann spheres in the man and in the Society, where any of the
dysfunctions, of both man and Society, become continuous functions, hence, consorted with a
solution. The man ought to add the In in his life, the people ought to add the Cognitive soma in the
Society.
Making a little notch here, I would ask that the spiritualists should excuse me for the
assigned title pseudoscience to what they preach or claim but it true; to the degree that, what the
spiritualists claim as true, is true, to that degree what they claim is pseudoscience; the truer their
claim to be proved, the more pseudoscientific. Why? Because as humans, we should heroically stand
for what we know to be proved through the limited five senses rationalism and logic, as vague and
little as it could be, than to accept what a few or one of the spiritualists have irrationally experienced
and presented as doubtlessly true, narrowing down to the spiritualists invisible limitations and ways
our brains abilities and our libertys potentials; such submission constitutes volunteered slavery and
unfortunately it happens willowy today. Even if, what the pseudoscientists claim to be true, it is
proved to be true, the man should heroically stand scientific to prove how from the current point of
understanding the man could reach the proved truth and what are the missing dots that connect the
so called darken areas of the man with the lighten worlds of the truth. It is the mans destination
the Prometheuss nature, and not to hurry up to find Peace Assurance and Safety being feared of his
indefinite own loss. It is not the mans nature to fear, shout, or rush for safety and security. Even if
any of the Superior Entities or Ultimate Notions or the Vultures actively object and punish the man,
and even if the entire Truth is given to the man, the man should stand firm denying what is given,
and find, not the given Truth nor the current Belief but, what is the path between the current Belief
and the given Truth. This is where the spiritualists fail. Even if a spiritualist makes miracles happen
- 38 -
and proves in plain view the Truth, still the man should heroically stand for his role; to bridge the
gap between knowing that the miracle or the Truth happened and knowing how the miracle or the
Truth happened; the man should deny any offered easiness, even if this is the Truth on the plate, and
demand the knowing that knowing how of each step of the way. Amen!
xii.
the BIBLIOGRAPHY.
[1]
J.K. Aggarwal and S. Park, Human motion: modeling and recognition of actions and
interactions, 3DPVT 2004 Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium 69 Sept. 2004, (2004), 640
647.
[2]
D.M. Alba, Cognitive inferences in fossil apes: does encephalization reflect intelligence?,
JASs Invited Reviews (Journal of Anthropological Sciences), 88 (2010), 1148.
[3]
T.J.J. Altizer, Living the Death of God, State University of New York Press, 2006 May 25.
[4]
T.J.J. Altizer and W. Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God, BobbsMerrill,
Indianapolis, 1966.
[5]
Answers.com, Embryo, http://www.answers.com/topic/embryo
[6]
K.W. Back, Biological models of social change, Duke University, American Sociological
Review, 36 (1971), 660667.
[7]
J.S. Bois, The Art of Awareness: A Handbook on Epistemics and General Semantics, W.C.
Brown Co., 1973.
[8]
Dr.R. Bolstad, Being Human, The Structure Behind Metaphor, Part 1, eBookBrowse.com,
free download Bolstad1519 pdf.
[9]
Brenden, Samuel Bois's Semantic Reactor, SPCH 100(fall 2009), California State University
of Fresno, Prof. John A. Cagle, Dept. of Communication.
[10]
F.H. Brynie, Brain Sense: The Science of the Senses and how we Process the World Around
Us, 2009.
[11]
P. Collins Jordan-Webb, Making Networking Working for You, Developing & Understanding
Your Networking Style, Midwest Society of Professional Consultants, 2 November 2004.
[12]
J.E. Crandall, A scale for social interest, 1975 American Society of Adlerian Psychology
Inc., Journal of Individual Psychology, 31(2) (1975), citing W. E. OConnell, Humanistic
identification: a new translation of Gemeinschaftgefhl, Journal of Individual Psychology, (1965),
4447. Copyright holders express written permission is pending since 20110813.
[13]
F. Davis, The Biological Model of Society, http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/05/ ,
http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/thebiologicalmodelofsociety/, 23 May 2011.
[14]
Discovery magazine, Newsflash: Time May Not Exist, (June 12) (2007).
[15]
Ebook, An Extension to the Notes Of Leon MacLaren, Man a TriCerebral Being,
Anekadownload.com, 2000.
[16]
Electronic periodical bulletin, Saint Silouan and father Sophrony, News in the Internet, (25)
(2001).
[17]
F. Engels, AntiDhring, Herr Eugen Dhrings Revolution in Science, Progress Publishers,
1947.
[18]
N.C. Georgantzas, Selforganizing systems (SOS). In M. Warner (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 2nd ed. London, UK: Thomson Learning, (2001), 5792
5806.
[19]
N.C. Georgantzas and W. Acar, Scenariodriven planning: learning to manage strategic
uncertainty, Quorum Books, 1995.
[20]
N.C. Georgantzas and G.D. Contogeorgis, Platonic substratum of Descartes error:
implications for modernity, XXI International Symposium of Philosophy, Ancient Olympia, Greece,
(2529 July 2010).
[21]
N.C. Georgantzas and G.D. Contogeorgis, SMEdriven economies might lead to authentic
democracy, Human Systems Management 1 (2011), 112.
[22]
N.C. Georgantzas and G.D. Contogeorgis, A Tutorial and RoundTable Discourse on
(political paideia or paedia), Stathakeion Center, Astoria, NY, 20 March 2011 .
[23]
A. Giannakopoulou, Prototype theory: an evaluation, Ecloga online journal, 3 (2003).
[24]
M.S. Green, You don't see with your eyes, you perceive with your mind: knowledge and
perception, University of VA, Knowledge and Perception, in D. Darby & T. Shelby (eds.), Hip Hop
and Philosophy, Open Court, (2005).
[25]
R. Grimassi, The Cauldron of Memory: Retrieving Ancestral Knowledge & Wisdom,
Llewellyn Publications, Ltd., 2009.
- 39 -
[26]
J. Halter, J. Ouslander and M. Tinetti and S. Studenski and K. High and S. Asthana and W.
Hazzard, Hazzard's Geriatric Medicine & Gerontology, The McGrawHill Companies, 2009.
[27]
G.W.F. Hegel, The Logic, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Oxford University
Press, 2nd Edition 108109, London, 1874.
[28]
W. Holland, Inside and outside, A Website About Nothing, (December 2009).
[29]
ISSS, Marxist Philosophy, The Birth of the New and the Destruction of the Old, Institute
for the Study of the Science of Society, 2009.
[30]
King James, Amplified Parallel Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Zondervan, 2008.
[31]
J. Jubb, in Reference to: J. Motz, Everyone an energy healer: the treat v conference, Santa Fe,
NM, Advances: The Journal of MindBody Health, 9 (1993), and in general reference: G. Braden,
The Divine Matrix: Bridging Time, Space, Miracles and Belief, Hay House Inc., 2007.
[32]
S. Karras, In the In Critical Thinking on Finding God in logic, 2008,
http://www.eleospia.com/en.html.
[33]
S. Karras, In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief, 2011,
http://www.eleospia.com/en/84.html.
[34]
S.D. Kelly, reviewed work(s): Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again
by Andy Clark, source: Mind, New Series, 109(433) (Jan.2000), 138143, published by: Oxford
University Press on behalf of the Mind Association.
[35]
M. Knezek, Nature vs. Nurture, The Miracle of Language, 1997, Duke University,
Durham, North Carolina.
[36]
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors we Live By, University Of Chicago Press, 2nd edition,
2003.
[37]
K. Marx, Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1959.
[38]
K. Marx, Marx to Engels Correspondence 1867, MEGA, Berlin, 1930.
[39]
K. Marx and F. Engels, The Manifesto of the Communists, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1969, 98137.
[40]
B. Mawr, Classical Review on M.C. Stokes, Plato: Apology. with an introduction,
translation and commentary, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1997.
[41]
D.P. McVeigh, An Early History of the Telephone 16641865, 2000.
[42]
J.M. Monti and A.A. Monjan, Principles and Practice of Geriatric Sleep Medicine,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[43]
J.J.
O'Connor
and
E.F.
Robertson,
Jules
Henri
Poincar,
School of
Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland, October 2003, referring to: Henri
Poincare, Science and Method, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1908.
[44]
W.D. Ross, Aristotelis Politica, Oxford University Press, 1957.
[45]
M.E. Rothermich and N. Zipprich, Friedrich August Kekul: a scientist and dreamer,
Woodrow Wilson Leadership Program in Chemistry, (1992).
[46]
C. Rovelli, Forget time, FQXi contest Nature of Time, (August 24), (2008).
[47]
C. Rovelli, Loop quantum gravity, University of Pittsburgh, MaxPlanckGesellschaft.
Living Reviews, (January 1998).
[48]
C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[49]
W. Schneider and J.M. Chein, Controlled & Automatic Processing: Behavior, Theory and
Biological Mechanisms, Cognitive Science, 2003.
[50]
W. Schneider and R.M. Shiffrin, Controlled and automatic human information processing: I.
Detection, search, and attention, Psychological Review, (1977).
[51]
Science Daily, Two brains systems tell us to breathe, (April 2), (2003), reprinted from:
UCLA, University of California, The Journal Neuron, (March 6), (2003), note: if no author is given,
the source is cited instead.
[52]
W. Sellars, Philosophy And The Scientific Image Of Man, Frontiers of Science and
Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962.
[53]
S.A. Studenski, Sleep and Falls in the Elderly, in: Jaime M. Monti & Andrew A. Monjan,
Principles and Practice of Geriatric Sleep Medicine, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[54]
D. Todman, MA FRACP FRCP, Inspiration from dreams in neuroscience research, School
of Medicine, University of Queensland, Australia, The Internet Journal of Neurology, 9(1) (2008),
ISPUB 13 February 2009.
[55]
M. Velmans and S. Schneider, The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, Blackwell Pub.,
2007.
[56]
A. Viklund, The Language of Unconscious Mind, Mysterious Dimensions, 2008.
- 40 -
[57]
E.L. Vockell, Memory and information processing, Purdue Univ. in Educational Psychology:
A Practical Approach, (2006).
[58]
B. Whitworth and A.P. Whitworth, The social environment model: small heroes and the
evolution of human society, First Monday PeerReviewed Journal On The Internet, 15(111)
(November 2010).
[59]
R.P. Wiebe, Expanding the model of human nature underlying self-control theory:
implications for the constructs of selfcontrol and opportunity, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 37(1) (April 2004), 6584.
[60]
Wikipedia, Personality Psychology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forte_Communication_Style_Profile, 2011.
[61]
P.D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch and E. Thompson, The Cambridge handbook of consciousness,
University of Toronto, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[62]
M. Zeleny, Human Systems Management Integrating Knowledge, Management and Systems,
World Scientific, 2005.
[63]
M. Zeleny, The mobile society: effects of global sourcing and network organization,
International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation archive, 1(1) (February 2007).
[64]
D. Zeps, Inside Outside Equivalence in Mathematics and Physics, University of Latvia,
Riga Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, 2009.

In The Out - Vade Mecum - Critical Thinking On Finding Man in Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Out - Vade Mecum - Critical Thinking On Finding Man in Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotirios (Sam) Karras, MPW

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotirios (Sam) Karras, MPW

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

knowing that the MANs NATURE STRUCTURE is tricerebral.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

knowing that the TRICEREBRAL mans NATURE structure is natural.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

from Knowing THAT to Knowing HOW.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

from KNOWING to subjective IMAGES.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

from SUBJECTIVE images to the EXTROVERSIVE image.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

societal concepts extroversion in the TRICEREBRAL nature of SOCIETY.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

the FACT in the HUMAN model.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

the SCIENTIFICS of the In.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Selforganizing systems (SOS): In the context of what N. Georgantzas precisely introduces as

QUESTION: How was it important for you, Professor Kekul?

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

During my stay in London I resided in Clapham Road... I frequently, however, spent my

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

There is no real opinion about this. But of course!

the FACT in the SOCIETY model.

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

Sotiris Karras: In the Out Critical Thinking on Finding Man in brief

You might also like